Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Construction Workers

Joan Walley: What assessment he has made of the supply of skilled construction workers.

David Miliband: The statutory industrial training board for the construction industry currently forecasts an average annual requirement for 82,000 recruits into the industry in the period 2003 to 2007. The latest survey of new entrants shows around 50,000 individuals entering formal training in 2002–03. Other sources of recruitment are people re-entering the industry and foreign workers. A further group of around 28,000 people already employed in the industry is undertaking on-site assessment and training.

Joan Walley: It is important that we have a new construction college in Burslem in my constituency that will train workers from across the country. Will the Minister take a special interest in how the learning and skills council and Stoke-on-Trent college of further education take that forward, particularly on the need to retrain pottery workers who have been made redundant? Will he take a special interest, too, in how we need local employers to provide local employment if we are to deliver the Government's agenda on new investment in housing and hospitals?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend spoke about the important work of the Burslem centre during the Housing Bill debate on 12 January. I shall certainly take an interest in it and ensure that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), looks into it. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) is right that the partnership between employers and the education system holds out real promise of progress.

Phil Willis: Does the Minister agree that the roofing industry is crucial to the construction industry? Is he aware that, of the 57,000 employees working in that industry, only 8,000 have certification to construction skills certification scheme standards? Is he aware that, of the 352 people who joined modern apprenticeships for roofing last year, 40 per cent. dropped out during their first year? What is he doing to stop people dropping out of modern apprenticeships? What will he do to ensure that people who work in the roofing industry have CSCS certification? Will he hold discussions with the insurance industry to try to ensure that firms that have qualified people get discounts on their massive insurance premiums?

David Miliband: I certainly agree that we cannot have a house building or construction industry without roofing specialists; I think that there will be cross-party agreement on that.
	I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned modern apprenticeships and the 255,000 young people undertaking them. He rightly mentioned the importance of quality in those apprenticeships, which is being taken up through the Learning and Skills Council. It is significant that £325 million of LSC money is supporting construction industry training, in addition to £75 million from the industry itself. That is a good example of the sort of partnership the hon. Gentleman and I both want.

Ian Davidson: What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that everyone in the construction industry receives appropriate safety training, particularly foreign workers, many of whom do not have an adequate grasp of English and for whom safety notices are therefore meaningless?

David Miliband: It is obviously important that we collaborate with our colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry on this matter, which crosses departmental boundaries. All training must include the health and safety aspects to which my hon. Friend referred and I shall take up his point about literacy and the issues related to it.

Overseas Students

Huw Irranca-Davies: What measures he is taking to encourage higher education institutions to compete effectively for (a) the market for overseas students and (b) the market for students from the Gulf states.

Charles Clarke: My Department has taken steps to encourage higher education institutions to compete effectively for the market for overseas students through the Prime Minister's initiative to attract more international students to the United Kingdom, including those from the Gulf states. A vigorous worldwide marketing campaign under the brand of Education UK supports that initiative. The number of non-European Union international students studying full-time in UK higher education institutions rose by 23 per cent. on that for the academic year 2001–02, to a total of 174,575 last year. The Prime Minister's initiative recruitment target of an extra 50,000 international students in higher education by 2004–05 has been achieved well ahead of target.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Having just returned from a visit to the United Arab Emirates, I can assure my right hon. Friend of the high regard in which our higher education institutions are held. He will be aware, however, that there is an immensely competitive market that includes higher education institutions from South Africa, New Zealand and elsewhere that often undercut us on price but cannot maintain our excellent quality. Can he assure me that, in discussions with higher education institutions, he will continue to foster a proactive approach to penetrating the market in the Gulf region? We are doing excellently, but the end-of-term report might say, "Could do better."

Charles Clarke: I am grateful for that question and I can assure my hon. Friend of our commitment to work in the area. He put his finger on the central point, which is that the quality of the higher education courses we offer gives us such a strong competitive position. He may be interested to know that only last week I had a dialogue with the Minister for the middle east about how we could better promote our universities and education more generally into the whole of the middle east region. We are completely seized of the points that my hon. Friend makes.

Andrew Turner: Non-EU students pay full fees, but every student admitted to higher education from an EU country receives a subsidy of between £6,000 and £16,000 from the British taxpayer. Today it is reported that applications are up 100 per cent. from Cyprus, 200 per cent. from Hungary, 300 per cent. from Slovenia and 365 per cent. from Poland. What will be the cost of that to the British taxpayer?

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's attitude is truly extraordinary. The figures published by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service today show that 406,000 applications have been received—that is a 3.1 per cent. increase in applications which, given all the controversy and discussion about our reforms, is a testament to the position—and that there have been increases from applicant countries. I shall set out the figures in the context of the 406,000: Slovakia increased from 23 to 95, the Czech Republic from 54 to 149, Estonia from 17 to 56, Hungary from 37 to 112, Latvia from 19 to 51, Slovenia from 12 to 49, Lithuania from 23 to 60, Cyprus from 712 to 1,458, Malta from 17 to 41 and Poland, the largest of the acceding states, from 95 to 442. Those are tiny figures. The hon. Gentleman's narrow nationalism is deeply appalling. We should be proud of the contribution that our higher education institutions are making to the whole of education throughout the European Union. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British Council report shows the enormous potential for our country of earning enormous sums, with another 1 million students wanting to come here by 2020, most of them from outside the EU? Is he aware that most people in the higher education sector believe that we should make plans now to invest more heavily in infrastructure and well-paid academics to make sure that we make the best of it? Even students from within the EU make a profit for the UK, as well as those from outside. Should we not act now to invest in the future and perhaps do more about private-public partnerships?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As an illustration, just today the figures published show a 50 per cent. increase in applications from the United States. There is a massive interest in this country to have students coming and studying here and a massive opportunity for our students to go and study in other countries throughout the world. We should take pride in the fact that our higher education institutions and the English language give us a competitive advantage and we should seek to build on that for all the economic reasons that my hon. Friend described. The petty nationalism of the Tory party is utterly deplorable.

Patrick McLoughlin: Of the 175,000 students to whom the Secretary of State referred, how many go to the Russell group?

Charles Clarke: I do not have the figures to hand, but a lot do. Many universities right across the range are substantially developing their work internationally. The hon. Gentleman may have read recent reports about the university of Nottingham, which is part of the Russell group, establishing a campus in China precisely to support work of this kind. Throughout our university sector there is a strong commitment to achieve that. It is something to be applauded—as most rational Tory Members will do—not denigrated.

David Cairns: May I tell my right hon. Friend about the success of James Watt college in my constituency in attracting large numbers of students from the middle east and the Gulf states, primarily by focusing on engineering-based courses which are in great demand there? Given that he has mentioned the British Council and the Foreign Office, can he ensure that his Department works closely with the relevant Scottish Education Ministers and the Scottish Executive so that every university and higher education college throughout the United Kingdom can benefit from the competitive advantages that he mentioned.

Charles Clarke: I can absolutely give that assurance, and I can add that many Scottish universities are outstanding in that field. Their reputation is strong for reasons of history and academic quality. Some of the marketing that they have pursued in working with the Scottish Executive achieves that end, but I believe—and I have discussed the matter with colleagues on the Executive—that a joint effort can maximise our impact internationally. That is what we are very keen to do.

Further Education Funding

Tony Baldry: If he will make a statement on funding for local colleges.

Alan Johnson: In November 2002, we announced an extra £1.2 billion of investment in further education colleges over the three years to 2005–06. That record investment means that total funding for further education is set to rise by 19 per cent. in real terms when compared with 2002–03. That is the largest ever investment in further education to support a radical and ambitious reform strategy that links funding to college performance.

Tony Baldry: People often think that Banbury is a very prosperous town, but in at least two wards. more than half the adults have no further or higher education qualifications. Given the Minister's answer, I do not understand why the Association of Colleges has expressed concern that colleges have had to dip into their reserves to the tune of £62 million for skills and vocational training this year, because they have received only some £20 million from the Department. How is it that every Member has heard concerns from local college principals and the Association of Colleges that they have been short-changed on money for skills and vocational training?

Alan Johnson: I am also puzzled by those remarks by the AOC. We meet that organisation regularly and it is appreciative of the additional investment, although—like any lobby group—it continues to seek more funding. Perhaps some of the problems have been with how the allocation of funding reaches the colleges through the learning and skills councils. The new chief executive, Mark Haysom, is aware of some of those problems, but I am willing to investigate specific problems in the hon. Gentleman's constituency to see whether I can do anything to help.

Linda Perham: My local college—Redbridge college, of which I am an external governor—is very pleased with the extra investment from the Government, but it is having problems obtaining the payment in full of £250,000 of funding from last year. It received 30 per cent. in April, having been promised 60 per cent. in March, and it has been promised the rest by the end of May. Will my right hon. Friend investigate the delay in that funding?

Alan Johnson: I certainly will investigate the point raised by my hon. Friend, which might relate to the point that I made to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). To put the issue in context again, we have increased funding for teaching and learning in FE colleges by 17 per cent. and funded a 60 per cent. real increase in capital spending in colleges. Almost anyone one speaks to in the FE sector will agree that, with 4 million students and a further 2 million reached in the workplace, it has been somewhat undervalued in the past. The sector would like the increased funding to continue, but it appreciates that funding for FE colleges has turned a significant corner.

Mark Simmonds: One of the interesting things about the answers that the Minister gave to both the previous questions on this topic is the disparity between his view and what is actually happening. It is clear that one of the essential roles of—and an apparent Government priority for—the FE sector and local colleges is the provision of basic skills and level 2 courses. Why then are the Government enabling cuts to take place in the FE sector, just as adults needing help are being turned away from literacy and numeracy classes—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) seems very annoyed that I have not called him. It is my right to decide whom to call, and he must not stare at me as if he has been deeply hurt by my decision. That is the last thing that he should do.

Mark Simmonds: Basic skills provision is also being axed. As I am sure the Minister would agree, such courses are essential for people who are trying to escape socio-economic deprivation. Will he assure the House that the threatened cuts in places of more than 70,000 that the Association of Colleges predicts this year will not materialise? Will he assure us that he will endeavour to deliver basic skills to all who need them?

Alan Johnson: I was in the hon. Gentleman's constituency at a very exciting and well attended initiative. He received many plaudits, and I am pleased that he did. His local college was extremely appreciative of the extra funding provided.
	I think that we are talking about two different things. The Association of Colleges is concerned that, in the next financial year when the level 2 entitlement kicks in, we will not be able to meet every claim for every piece of further education training in the country in the way that we did last year. Last year, every bid made to the Learning and Skills Council was accepted. The reason for the concern is that we have to have priorities and the 4 million adults who do not even have a basic level 2 qualification must be our priority. That is why we are going to give them financial help and an adult learning grant to meet that priority. If that we means that we cannot meet every single claim, we will have to accept that in the interests of meeting that priority. Nevertheless, literary and numeracy are what the issue is all about. We will strive, as always, to ensure that all the claims are met.

Dennis Skinner: Socialism is the language of priorities.

Alan Johnson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) suggests, new Labour is the language of priorities.

Lawrie Quinn: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his answer to the initial question. On Monday, I spent the morning at Scarborough sixth-form college and saw at first hand the excellent work that is being done. However, the college stands alone and it competes with many sixth forms in the surrounding local education authority area. Students and staff alike asserted to me that there was a gap in terms of the money that was being spent in the college. May I tempt my right hon. Friend to make the short trip from Hull to Scarborough to see the excellent work that the college is doing and perhaps persuade him that we need to give greater consideration to the inequalities between LEA sixth forms and stand-alone sixth forms such as at Scarborough sixth-form college?

Alan Johnson: I will gladly make the short trip to Scarborough to see my hon. Friend. We are aware of those issues and, in this funding round, the funding gap between sixth forms and further education colleges has closed considerably. It is always a delight to see him, particularly in his delightful constituency.

Schools (Appropriate Relations Guidance)

Anne McIntosh: What guidance he provides to schools on maintaining appropriate relations between pupils and staff.

Margaret Hodge: We have worked with the teachers unions and with the National Employers Organisation of School Teachers to produce a document entitled "Joint NEOST/Teacher Union Guidance on Preventing Abuse of Trust for Teachers, Education Staff and Volunteers". We have also funded further work to produce further advice entitled "Developing Safe Working Practices for the Protection of Children and Staff in Educational Settings".

Anne McIntosh: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the number of disturbing cases that I have raised with the Secretary of State about bullying between pupils and inappropriate relationships between staff and pupils in certain schools that are in or serve the Vale of York? Has the guidance to which she refers been published and, if schools have similar guidance, is it not appropriate for parents to have sight of it?

Margaret Hodge: It is certainly appropriate for parents to have sight of it. The hon. Lady raised the issue of bullying between pupils and I hope that she appreciates the concentrated work that we—in particular, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis)—have been doing to try to tackle the problem and to create zero tolerance for bullying in our schools. If she wishes to raise further issues with us in relation to bullying between pupils and teachers, I would warmly welcome further consideration of those issues so that we can take any further action that she would deem appropriate.

Bob Blizzard: Is it not essential that the relationship between pupils and staff involves good order and discipline in the classroom? Because good discipline and learning can be disrupted by a small number of highly disruptive pupils, is it not essential that we have good provision of pupil referral units throughout the country for children of all ages? Will she undertake an audit of pupil referral unit provision and take action to fill the gaps? At the moment, there appears to be a bit of a postcode lottery and, surely, we do not want postcode disruption in our schools.

Margaret Hodge: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's comments about the importance of good order in the classroom so that effective teaching and learning can take place. How that is developed is down to each local authority and the schools within it. The use made of pupil referral units must be decided locally. There are good pupil referral units around the country. I visited a project yesterday in Oxford that is run by a voluntary organisation called Parent-School Links, which takes sound action to improve the behaviour of children in schools and to tackle the behaviour between children and parents and between children and teachers. Such small initiatives, run by valuable voluntary organisations, should be spread across the country. That is the key to improving behaviour in the classroom.

Patrick Cormack: Taking on the valid point made by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), is not the real problem the fact that there are no longer proper sanctions in schools and that, when teachers try to exercise reasonable discipline, they are frequently pursued by litigious parents who have a perverted idea of human rights?

Margaret Hodge: I do not agree. We have strengthened the power of head teachers to apply appropriate sanctions in schools. The hon. Gentleman would probably agree that we live in more litigious times and people exercise their rights, rightly or wrongly, in all sorts of situations. I do not agree with his premise that we have weakened the power of heads. We have gone in quite the opposite direction.

Tim Collins: Does the Minister agree that, with reference to appropriate relations between pupils and staff, the overwhelming majority of teachers get it right 100 per cent. of the time, and they deserve both our thanks and a presumption of trust? Will she confirm that more than 80 per cent. of teachers who are accused of having behaved inappropriately are subsequently entirely cleared and vindicated? Will she therefore accept that now is the time to act on the NASUWT campaign for legislation to preserve teacher anonymity up until the point of a conviction? Will she undertake to accept the offer from the Opposition to speed the passage of such legislation through both Houses of Parliament, or will it take the election of a Conservative Government to give teachers that essential protection?

Margaret Hodge: I am not sure that there is a single child or parent with an interest in the education service who would welcome the transfer of power to the Tory party. Its record in government on education was abysmal and our record in government has been second to none, with increased investment, rising standards and a massive extension of opportunity. On the specific issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, we believe there must be a conversation with the NASUWT and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is engaged in those discussions. We will look further at the issues that the union has legitimately raised and take the action that we deem appropriate.

University Salaries

Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on university staff salaries.

Alan Johnson: Universities are autonomous, independent bodies and are responsible for determining their own affairs, including pay for their staff. The Government play no part in setting the levels of pay or conditions of service for higher education staff. However, we recognise that Government funding plays a part in what institutions can pay their staff. The Higher Education Funding Council for England will allocate almost £6 billion of grants for 2004–05, a 9.3 per cent. increase on 2003–04. Within that, funding for teaching is increasing by 5.6 per cent.

Ben Chapman: In recent times, I have had a great deal of correspondence from academics expressing their concern about the relative long-term decline in academic salaries. I share that concern. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if we are to have world-class academic institutions, we need to attract and retain quality staff? Does he agree that as the Government have a role to play in the funding of higher education, they have an influence on salaries? Does he have a long-term plan to solve the problem?

Alan Johnson: I entirely accept the point that my hon. Friend makes. Indeed, the Prime Minister, in a speech late last year, said:
	"The shortfall of teaching funding has badly hit the salaries of academic staff, which have shown practically no increase in real terms over two decades."
	That is one of the reasons why we are pursuing the controversial measures in the Higher Education Bill. Not only are we putting in an extra £3 billion from the taxpayer, but an extra £2 billion will come through existing fees and through the increase. University vice-chancellors tell us that, in general, at least a third of that money will be put back into the salaries and conditions of their staff. That will make an enormous contribution in tackling a very serious and deep-seated problem.

Tim Yeo: Has the Minister seen the survey by the Association of University Teachers that confirms that higher education was better off under the last Conservative Government than it is today under Labour? Will he confirm that Labour's only answer to the growing funding crisis in universities is to force students to run up bigger and bigger debts? While that will almost certainly deter many young people from poorer backgrounds from applying for university at all, it will do nothing to address the problem mentioned by the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) with regard to universities attracting and retaining top-calibre staff.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman always does a good turn at the Dispatch Box; it is always amusing.
	The problem with the AUT study, which I have seen, is that it does not compare like with like. There was a change in the way in which student support funding is measured and reported, as we moved to economic cost rather than cash outlay, and that has distorted its figures. The independent statistical first release, which takes into account that change, shows a level of student support that was higher in 2002–03 than 10 years before. If one takes the AUT's own statistics and report and strips away student support, one sees that they show an increase in higher education funding of more than 25 per cent. above inflation between 1994 and 2003–04.
	I find it incredible that, during the most important debate on higher education since the early 1960s and the publication of the Robbins report, the Opposition still do not tell us how they plan to tackle these difficult issues. While our proposals are controversial, they are the right thing to do, as many of the hon. Gentleman's own party members will be telling him from the other place as we take the Bill through the Lords.

Valerie Davey: While I obviously accept the Minister's initial response with regard to the independence of universities, given the Government's input into the funding, may I ask him to confirm that he continues to raise in dialogue with universities the fact that there remains among academic staff a differential between women and men?

Alan Johnson: Yes, I will raise that issue. Actually, it does not need to be raised, because vice-chancellors are very aware of it. Indeed, as my hon. Friend will know, the latest pay deal, which is a two-year deal, seeks to address some deep-seated issues, including inequality in pay and an 8.1 per cent. increase for the lowest pay grades in universities. She makes a very important point that I shall reiterate on every occasion I can.

Martin Smyth: May I share with the Minister my concern in support of the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman)? As the representative of a university constituency, I know that there is great concern about a brain drain in which our academic staff go abroad because we cannot pay them proper salaries. Will the Minister therefore consult his colleagues in Northern Ireland to see whether what is happening in England can also happen in universities there?

Alan Johnson: I will certainly speak to my colleagues in Northern Ireland. As the Higher Education Bill progressed through the Commons, I spoke to many Northern Ireland Members and to the vice-chancellors of both universities in Northern Ireland, who are aware of the problems. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, although we think that the issue should be devolved—we are keen to see a devolved Administration pick it up again—universities in Northern Ireland must face up to the controversial issues surrounding higher education funding that we are trying to face up to in England.

School Transport Bill

Roger Williams: What assessment he has made of the impact of the draft School Transport Bill on traffic congestion.

Charles Clarke: The purpose of the draft School Transport Bill is to reduce congestion and to enable pilot authorities to provide improved home-to-school transport. We will expect all pilot authorities to have plans that will cut car use on the school run, which will reduce traffic and congestion.

Roger Williams: Hon. Members who represent rural areas, as I do, view a number of the proposals with great concern. Does the Secretary of State agree that if the draft Bill were rolled out across the whole of Wales, 80,000 children would lose the right to free school transport, which must result in more private cars being used for the school run? Will he join me in urging the Welsh Assembly not to adopt any proposals that would result in increased congestion and children from rural and remote areas losing the right to free school transport?

Charles Clarke: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures. The whole of local government, which includes all parties, the Churches and schools say that the current school transport arrangements are not sustainable. That is why, in consultation with those bodies, we laid the draft School Transport Bill, which is designed to free local authorities to make decisions—if they want to make them. I will not impose such decisions: local authorities must decide how best to address congestion in their localities, which is an intelligent way to proceed.
	In considering a proposal from an authority, the criterion that I, as Secretary of State, would set—the National Assembly for Wales will apply the criterion in Wales—is that it must increase children's ability to travel to school and reduce congestion. I am well aware that it is possible to make a brouhaha about the matter, in which case I admit that the Bill will not be necessary, but it would be a mistake not to seize this opportunity to address a serious problem that concerns local government, Churches and everyone else, and to surrender to the bandying about of misleading and inaccurate figures.

David Chaytor: In respect of school transport, does my right hon. Friend agree that the preferences of parents who believe passionately that their children should be educated in faith schools should be given equal priority to the preferences of parents who believe passionately that their children should be educated in secular schools?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend, who is a member of the Select Committee, raises an important issue of principle, which lies at the heart of the proposals to permit local education authorities to take those considerations into account. School transport is controversial and involves many difficulties, which is why there has not been legislation on the matter for decades—since 1944. We should not allow the current system to decay, and we should introduce a system that allows local education authorities to address such issues on a regulated basis to try to take us forward.

Mark Hoban: In an earlier answer, the Secretary of State gave the impression of urgency, when he said, "we should seize this opportunity." However, the Transport Committee report on school transport states:
	"The Government's leisurely approach is an indulgence . . . An experiment which does not end until 2011 is not addressing this problem with the urgency it needs."
	How does he square the Committee's criticism with his own comments about urgency and seizing the initiative?

Charles Clarke: I gave evidence to the Transport Committee, and think that the report, in which the Committee rightly gives us credit for taking up the issue, is good. I urge the hon. Gentleman to talk to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who, on the day when the draft Bill was announced in the Queen's Speech, launched a vigorous attack in the media, saying that the draft Bill is wrong and that we should not take this course. As I said at the time, the hon. Member for South Suffolk can stop the argument. In line with the question from the hon. Member for Fareham, the hon. Member for South Suffolk should work with us on the legislation, which his Conservative friends in local government want, to take the matter forward properly.

Education Maintenance Allowance

Adrian Bailey: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the education maintenance allowance in raising levels of participation in post-16 education.

David Miliband: In the pilots, education maintenance allowances increased participation by 16-year-olds in education by nearly six percentage points. Evaluation findings of the national scheme show that we are expected to ensure that, by 2006–07, 72,000 more young people will be participating in post-16 education thanks to education maintenance allowances.

Adrian Bailey: I thank the Minister for his reply. In my local authority, Sandwell, which is one of the more deprived boroughs in the country, experience of the pilot scheme reflects the figures that he gave. As the grants are linked not only to attendance but to performance, will he give an assessment of improvements in academic performance at this level and assurances on long-term funding to sustain them?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The English problem, post-16, concerns not only participation but progression. The key aspect of education maintenance allowances is that they are tied to achievement, as well as attendance. I will write to my hon. Friend with the precise figures, but I can assure him that the programmes have had a significant and positive impact on achievement.

Andrew Robathan: To use a phrase of the Home Secretary's, is it not bonkers that we should pay children who presumably do not see the value of education to go to school? Is it not equally perverse that this Government, who introduced fees, and are introducing top-up fees for universities, should say on the one hand, "We'll pay you to go to school", and on the other, "We'll saddle you with debt to go to university"?

David Miliband: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what is bonkers. It is bonkers when young people who have the motivation and qualifications to stay on in the educational system have to leave it because they do not have the necessary financial support. We hope over time to teach Conservative Members that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, socialism is the language of priorities; and this is a priority.

Colin Burgon: May I bring back a brief report from the chalk face? Last week, I was lucky enough to speak to 16-year-olds at Brigshaw high school. I got a better reception as an MP than I used to get as a school teacher, as those young people listened with rapt attention to the Government's proposals on the education maintenance allowance. This Labour Government have introduced these proposals precisely because young people from such former mining areas did not, for a number of social and cultural reasons, stay on to fulfil their true potential. May I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that when a Labour Government carry on like this, they are doing a brilliant job?

David Miliband: These occasions are the time for asking Ministers searching questions to test Government policy. I am happy to reiterate that in mining areas such as mine and my hon. Friend's, education maintenance allowances can plug a significant gap in the system. We all know that the best investment that we can make is in education, and anything that helps young people to participate and progress in their studies must be good.

Science Education

Brian Iddon: What resources are available to support innovative projects that bring nine to 19-year-olds closer to an understanding of science, engineering and technology in industry.

Stephen Twigg: The Department makes available £25 million a year through local learning and skills councils to promote closer links between schools and businesses. The new programme of study for key stage 4 and vocational GCSEs in applied science and engineering aims to give a broader understanding of science and engineering. Science learning centres and science and engineering specialist colleges encourage teachers to make links with local businesses and universities.

Brian Iddon: The Northwest Development Agency has provided £2.3 million to build Bolton technical innovation centre, which is the first junior incubator in the United Kingdom. The local education authority will ensure that all nine to 19-year-olds have access to the building, which will be open in the evenings, at the weekends and throughout the school holidays. Industry also has access to the building and is providing state-of-the-art equipment and seconding staff to show pupils how to use it. Does my hon. Friend agree that, to ensure the success of innovative projects such as the Bolton TIC, we must ensure a steady stream of revenue funding instead of expecting them continually to rely on the bid culture?

Stephen Twigg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting an excellent example of innovation. He was too modest to mention the fact that he chairs the board of Bolton TIC, but I pay tribute to his personal role in doing that. I know that he has written to the Secretary of State on this matter, and we shall consider his suggestions. He rightly highlights the great challenge that we face to encourage more young people to study science and engineering, and Bolton TIC plays a very important role in that regard.

Nicholas Winterton: The Minister will know that the corporation of Macclesfield college was very disappointed that the Macclesfield learning zone was not successful in the first tranche of learning zone projects, bearing in mind the fact that a successful application would have resulted in a new college on the same site as a new secondary school, which would have enabled the college to provide the facilities and expertise for engineering, technology and science. If the college makes proposals for improvement, will the Department give them favourable and sympathetic consideration?

Stephen Twigg: Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education are whispering in my ear that this is a very exciting and positive project, and I am delighted to take their word, and that of the hon. Gentleman, for that. Initially, this is a matter for the local education authority and the LSC, but when proposals are made we will give them sympathetic consideration.

Anne Campbell: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of increasing the number of young people going into science, engineering and technology is to increase the number of girls and young women taking scientific subjects at school and going on to study them in further and higher education? What efforts is his Department making specifically to encourage young women to take up those subjects at school?

Stephen Twigg: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend; there is a big challenge both to increase the number of girls studying those subjects and to stem the long-term fall in the number of students continuing to study science subjects after the age of 16. An important part of our strategy for dealing with that is via science and engineering specialist colleges, and I am delighted that there is a record, and growing, number of such colleges, the role of which is not only to enhance science learning and teaching in their own schools but to give support to primary and secondary schools. Part of that work involves ensuring that the options are available on an equal basis, and that there is a positive approach to encouraging more girls and women to study sciences up to the age of 16 and beyond.

Higher Education

Alistair Carmichael: What progress has been made in reaching a 50 per cent. participation rate in higher education.

Alan Johnson: The provisional higher education initial participation rate for 2002–03, released earlier this month, is 44 per cent. This represents a rise of one percentage point on the 2001–02 figure of 43 per cent.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. He will be aware that the 50 per cent. target has been met north of the border, where his Labour colleagues in the Scottish Executive, with a little help and encouragement from my colleagues, have already abolished tuition fees and reintroduced student grants. In fact, in the first year following the abolition and reintroduction, the increase in applications to Scottish universities was some 10 per cent., compared with 1 per cent. in England and Wales. In the light of that evidence, does the Minister believe that trebling student tuition fees in England and Wales will help the Government to meet their 50 per cent. target?

Alan Johnson: There are many excellent things about Scottish higher education, one of which is that is has always had a higher participation rate. Another is that there has always been very good collaboration between higher and further education. There is a myth that, after the Cubie report, Scotland abolished up-front fees. Every student in Scotland—barring certain categories—will pay about £2,100 after they have graduated, on an income-contingent basis—

Alistair Carmichael: That is a contribution.

Alan Johnson: The contribution is apparently towards the grant. We provide the grant free; the contribution is towards the teaching, so I do not accept that argument.
	My final point is that the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service figures released yesterday showed a 66 per cent. increase in the number of UK applications for foundation degrees. A large part of our expansion up to 50 per cent. participation will come from two-year vocational foundation degrees, and there has already been a very healthy increase in applications for such courses, so I do not believe that our proposals will affect our drive towards the 50 per cent. rate.

Jeff Ennis: My question is on the very point that we need to expand the base of foundation degrees to achieve that target of 50 per cent. Will the Minister say a little more about the response that he is getting from local universities and industry to achieve that massive expansion in foundation degrees?

Alan Johnson: I welcome my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in this issue. We are getting a good response from employers and from higher education institutions—I refer to higher education institutions rather than universities because it is FE colleges that in the main provide foundation degrees accredited by universities. The response is very good, and particularly good when one considers the fact that these degrees are very new—the first batch of graduates came through only last summer. The UCAS figures show that interest will expand, and our role is to make sure that people, particularly youngsters, are aware of this route into an accredited degree. We all have a role, however, to support one of the most exciting initiatives that we have seen in this country, and to end the strange prejudice that there has always been in favour of academic qualifications over vocational ones, which has dogged British academia for too long.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor General was asked—

Domestic Violence

Julie Morgan: What plans she has to introduce statutory reviews of domestic violence murders.

Harriet Harman: The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, which I hope will be introduced to the House in June, will contain a clause establishing reviews after domestic homicides. Most domestic homicides—one in three of all killings—are not single, isolated events but the culmination of mounting violence. We must learn lessons from these deaths so that we can intervene earlier. Subject to the approval of the House, that is what the multi-agency domestic homicide reviews will do.

Julie Morgan: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. I know that she is aware of the domestic violence homicide review conducted in the south Wales area, which produced the tragic evidence that there had been approximately 40 referrals to the health service before a particular murder took place. Is she aware that the review was jointly led by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and South Wales police, and that this joint approach was very successful in drawing all the different agencies into the process? Can she think of any situation in which it would not be appropriate to carry out a review when a domestic violence homicide had taken place?

Harriet Harman: I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. I am grateful to the people in Wales who allowed me to see a copy of the full case report. It shows that on probably 40 occasions the woman had told her GP, her friends and her employer and had been in A and E. The criminal justice system missed many opportunities to step in and stop the violent assaults, which, because they were not stopped, culminated in her being killed. It is important that all those who worked together on the review continue to work together to ensure that practice is such that such a case does not happen again.
	My hon. Friend asked about cases in which it would not be appropriate to conduct a review. There are some exceptional cases in which a killing is a bolt out of the blue. In most cases, however, somebody—a child's teachers, a GP or the police—will have known about the violence. In cases where a death has resulted, local agencies will need to have a review, so that they can learn lessons and introduce better practice.

Meg Munn: May I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to ensure that included within the definition of domestic violence are people with learning disabilities who are living in a more domestic situation? She will be aware that great changes have been made whereby many people are now supported within domestic situations, and as such they can be particularly vulnerable to abuse from either relatives or carers, including paid carers.

Harriet Harman: The definition of domestic violence, in circumstances in which it will give rise to a review after a homicide, is in the Bill. We recognise that when violence takes place in a domestic setting, either between a husband and wife or a former husband and wife or boyfriend and girlfriend, or when it involves a young child, it is particularly difficult to make sure that there is early intervention. The cases that my hon. Friend mentioned will certainly fall within that review.

Witnesses (Trial Attendance)

Ben Chapman: If she will make a statement on measures taken by the Crown Prosecution Service to prevent non-attendance by witnesses at trials.

Harriet Harman: The Crown Prosecution Service works closely with the police, courts and other agencies to do everything possible to ensure that witnesses attend court, so that when a crime has been committed justice can be done. That includes extra police protection for frightened witnesses, extra support for victims, telling witnesses what is going on in their cases and looking after them when they get to court and afterwards.

Ben Chapman: Many witnesses, because of victimisation and the fact that they are very frightened, do not turn up and trials fail as a result. They will turn up, however, if they are supported and encouraged, and the system should allow for that. I welcomed yesterday's "big victim event", but things are still difficult on the ground. Merseyside in particular still has a high level of failed trials because of this problem. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that in magistrates courts in Wirral and in Crown courts on Merseyside, appropriate support mechanisms are in place and will be developed?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is bad enough to have been a victim of crime without feeling that one has become a victim of the criminal justice system. People are prepared to come forward, give evidence and ensure that offenders are brought to justice, but they need help and support in a system that is all too familiar to the professionals, but baffling and often frightening for lay people.
	As my hon. Friend says, a big conference took place yesterday. All the criminal justice partners and members of the voluntary sector came together to talk about better support for victims and witnesses. That must be provided on the ground. I know that one in three cases in the magistrates court in my hon. Friend's area does not proceed. We must ensure that there are as few unnecessary hearings as possible, and that everyone works together to make things run smoothly.

Dominic Grieve: I am sure that the Solicitor-General agrees that another reason for the non-attendance of witnesses may well be a sense of dismay or dissatisfaction at the length of time they must wait before giving evidence. Will she reassure us about the role played by the Attorney-General in attempts to resolve the dispute, in high-cost criminal cases, between the Bar and the Legal Services Commission in relation to scrutiny that the commission wishes to apply to the individual reading of documents in court cases? I understand that it is threatening to disrupt criminal trials to a serious extent.

Harriet Harman: The matters relating to barristers' fees are being actively discussed by the Lord Chancellor and his Ministers and the Bar Council. We have delivered our commitment to ensure that pay levels are the same for prosecution and defence counsel.
	The Attorney-General is leading the "no witness, no justice" project, which is intended to ensure that all the support services needed by victims and witnesses are provided on the ground.

Vera Baird: I strongly agree that it is important to support frightened witnesses, but is it not equally important to look after willing ones? Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the case of a nightclub doorman in my constituency—the kind of person who is likely to be a prosecution witness more than once—who was dismayed to find that the trial fell on the date of his holiday? He could not be compensated because he had lost no earnings, but he had lost a day with his children. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that discretion is used to ensure that such events do not occur?

Harriet Harman: I shall certainly look at that case, and examine the rules governing payment for witnesses. I shall try to establish whether more could have been done to ensure that the trial fell on a convenient date. We must all make an effort to work around those who help to bring offenders to justice, rather than allowing them to be inconvenienced or even out of pocket, or to lose time with their families.

John Burnett: Consultation on the Government paper "Securing the attendance of witnesses in court" closed on 2 January this year. What was the thrust of the consultees' views on the protection of witnesses in personal jeopardy, and what are the Government's proposals to secure their safety?

Harriet Harman: There are two points that I would like to make, which arise from the concerns that have been brought fully to our attention for victims and witnesses who feel in personal jeopardy, the first of which is that that should be a consideration in every case. All the agencies should consider who the witnesses are and what support they might need. That should be a routine consideration.
	Secondly, we are bringing in another power next month, which I think will help with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. That will enable the court to order the name of the victim or witness to be withheld and not reported, so there will be anonymity. Some people fear that if they give evidence and their name is then in the local or even national newspapers, they will be subject to intimidation and pressure. We need to ensure that the court proceedings are as open as possible, but on some limited occasions we will need to make sure that there is anonymity for those who are prepared to come forward, sometimes risking their personal circumstances.

Anti-Semitism

Andrew Dismore: If she will make a statement on her policy towards prosecution of anti-Semitic hate crimes.

Harriet Harman: In July last year, the Crown Prosecution Service published its new policy and guidance for prosecutors on cases of racist and religious crime.

Andrew Dismore: First, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your good sense in lifting the sub judice rule to allow me to ask a question about Abu Hamza. For once, we have some good sense on that issue.
	Why, when there is such overwhelming evidence of incitement to race hatred, violence and support for terrorism by such people as Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri Mohamed, has no prosecution taken place? If newspapers such as The Sun can mount highly effective investigations to produce the evidence that would justify prosecution—and, I believe, conviction—why cannot the police and the CPS do the same?

Harriet Harman: A file from the police is with the Crown Prosecution Service at the moment. I cannot say more about that case at this stage, although I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about Mr. Speaker having lifted the sub judice rule. My hon. Friend will be aware that the CPS is independent, and when it is actively considering a case such as this, it would be wrong of me to pre-empt or prejudice any decision about to be made. I do not think that the House would thank me for that.

Business of the House

Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

Peter Hain: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 3 May—The House will not be sitting.
	Tuesday 4 May—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill.
	Wednesday 5 May—Opposition half-day [10th Allotted Day] (Part One). There will be a half-day debate entitled "The Government's Failure to Solve the UK Housing Crisis" on an Opposition motion, followed by a motion to approve a money resolution on the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill, followed by a debate on genetically modified crops on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Thursday 6 May—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill.
	Friday 7 May—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 10 May—Second Reading of the Energy Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 11 May—Remaining stages of the Housing Bill.
	Wednesday 12 May—Second Reading of the Age-Related Payments Bill, followed by a motion to approve the first report of the Procedure Committee on estimates and appropriation procedure.
	Thursday 13 May—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a debate on armed forces personnel on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 14 May—Private Members' Bills.
	The House may wish to be reminded that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the end of business on Thursday 27 May and return on Monday 7 June.

Oliver Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for the business. May we have two days on Report for the Pensions Bill, and will he ensure that that debate does not fall on 18 May, when the National Pensioners Convention has its parliament in Blackpool? The Leader of the House will understand how important it is for the Minister for Pensions to be present there to hear the robust views of the pensioners. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) will also be there on that day.
	When can we expect to receive the Home Secretary's Bill to prevent courts from releasing psychopathic terrorists who have been detained while sane?
	What has happened to the statutory instrument denying welfare benefits to non-working east European migrants, which is due before 1 May? Can we expect it tomorrow?
	The Leader of the House will be aware that on this morning's "Today" programme, Giscard d'Estaing, president of the Convention on the Future of Europe and architect of the EU constitution, confirmed that Britain could reject the constitution and still remain a full member of the European Union. Is there any reason why the Leader of the House should not now consult the Electoral Commission about the question to be asked in the referendum and swiftly introduce the necessary paving Bill, and will he tell us about the timetable today?
	Finally, why is it that everything that the Government touch seems to go wrong? We are told this morning that Royal Mail is losing 1 million letters a year—particularly in London—through theft, incompetence, cannabis on the job and a chaotic culture. Does the Leader of the House understand the sheer bloomin' misery caused to pensioners when their money does not arrive, or to the person whose credit card is stolen? What is the response of Ministers? Apparently, they say, "Oh, we intend to watch tonight's television programme." Should they not have controls in place, and when will they explain to the House what they are doing about this scandal?

Peter Hain: I was intrigued to discover which questions the shadow Leader of the House would ask. The polling organisation ICM has refused to work for the Tories on the ground that they are doctoring its questions. This is the first known case of a pollster sacking a client to protect its integrity. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is in the same boat.
	I shall certainly give very serious consideration to the hon. Gentleman's request for two days on Report for the Pensions Bill. He makes a fair point about the parliamentary time needed to debate it, particularly given the large number of Government amendments to it. He will appreciate that it is a very important Bill that protects workers from being robbed of their pensions. We have seen such tragic cases recently, but of course it was under the Tories that such circumstances were created and allowed to continue.
	On the Home Secretary's preventing courts from releasing psychopathic terrorists, he of course keeps this issue under constant review. If extra powers are needed—[Interruption.] There are very tough powers in existence, for which we are constantly criticised, including by Conservative Members. The statutory instrument to which the hon. Gentleman refers will be laid tomorrow, so he can rest content on that point.
	I have a transcript of Giscard d'Estaing's remarks on the "Today" programme about the European Union constitution. His point was that Britain would be pushed to "the edge" of the European Union if ours was the only country that did not sign up to the new constitutional treaty. If the other 24 countries agreed to it and Britain did not, we would be left behind and there would be consequences. One consequence of being on the edge would be precisely the kind of Tory incompetence that we saw during European negotiations on BSE. The Tories failed to create the circumstances in which we could work with our colleagues to solve the problem.
	On the working time directive, the problems that we have sought to unravel in recent months are precisely those that the Conservatives foisted on us when in government by not negotiating the directive properly to protect British interests. We do not want to be on the edge of Europe; we want to be in the middle of Europe, influencing its direction, and that is where this Government will place us.
	In a quaint remark at the end of his questions, the hon. Gentleman asked why everything that this Government touch goes wrong. What about the record number of jobs in the economy, and the lowest inflation and mortgage rates for a generation? These are the things that people really care about, not the antics of Conservative Front Benchers at Prime Minister's questions and business questions.
	On the substantive issue of the allegations made against Royal Mail staff, they are very serious and Royal Mail's investigations unit will look into them. That process will continue. The unit has a record of conducting investigations over a number of years. We as Members of Parliament depend on our local Royal Mail service—on our local postie—and have a good relationship with the staff, who are admired throughout the country for the fantastic job that they do. I do not think that we should attack them willy-nilly, in the disgraceful way that the hon. Gentleman did.

Jeremy Corbyn: In view of the continuing fighting in Fallujah and Najaf and the death last night of American servicemen, as well as the death of a large number of Iraqi civilians over the past few days and weeks, and the very serious statement made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, calling for a political rather than a military solution, will the Leader of the House ensure that we have a statement from either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary at the earliest possible opportunity, and a full debate on the whole desperate situation in Iraq, where we are increasingly seeing the Vietnamisation of a war that the Americans simply cannot win? We need a political solution brought about by the international community, with the Iraqi people.

Peter Hain: Like my hon. Friend, no doubt, I marched against the Vietnam war. I see absolutely no comparison with the situation in Iraq—on the contrary. It is a very difficult situation, with terrorist groups and others seeking to destabilise the operations of the coalition forces. I agree, however, that a political solution is needed, and that is precisely what the Government are backing, with power due to be handed over to the interim Iraqi governing council in June, as part of creating a free and democratic Iraq and solving the political problem that existed for a generation under Saddam Hussein's undemocratic dictatorship.

Andrew Stunell: I thank the Leader of the House for his hint that there will indeed be two days for the Pensions Bill. May I encourage him to change that hint to a firm promise? I draw his attention to the publication of two recent written statements by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, one on sustainable development and the other on energy efficiency, with the latter running to 116 pages and incorporating a 16 per cent. reduction in the Government's CO 2 emissions policy targets. Does he agree that it is not really satisfactory for the Secretary of State to have made only one statement to the House on environmental matters since the general election, and will he ask her to put in a rather more diligent performance?
	We welcome the statements that have been made, but is it not time for the House to have a proper debate on Iraq, where we appear to be in a descending spiral of more disorder, more troops, more casualties, and, according to senior diplomats, no plan B? Will the Leader of the House assure us that we will have an opportunity to debate the Government's strategy on Iraq thoroughly in the near future?

Peter Hain: Iraq is debated at the highest level in the House almost daily, and certainly weekly. Only last week, the Prime Minister made a statement to the House on Iraq, and the hon. Gentleman and others were able to question him. Despite the difficulties and the attempts being made to destabilise Iraq and prevent it from going down the democratic path favoured by the Government, we will get through in the end.
	The hon. Gentleman may be surprised at the amount of time given to debate the Pensions Bill on Report. His point has been well registered, as has that of the shadow Leader of the House.
	The hon. Gentleman's point on energy efficiency is an important one, but I disagree fundamentally with his allegation about the Secretary of State, who is widely admired throughout the world for her leadership on environmental issues and on tackling climate change and rising CO 2 emissions. She has done more than any other Environment Minister in the world to drive forward that agenda, and she should be praised for that, not criticised.

David Taylor: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 1059, tabled by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and signed by many other Members, on international noise awareness day?
	[That this House places on record its appreciation to the UK Noise Association, a coalition of key organisations lobbying on different aspects of noise, for the work it undertakes in seeking to tackle the increasing nuisances and problems caused by unnecessary noise, particularly by anti-social neighbours; is alarmed that Britain's cities are up to 10 times noisier than a decade ago and that tranquil areas in the countryside are fast disappearing; is further alarmed that 32 million people in the UK are exposed to high levels of noise and that an estimated 2.5 million live in homes with bad sound insulation; notes that 28th April is the ninth international noise awareness day; congratulates the UK Noise Association for supporting the event and assisting honourable and Right honourable Members in the formation of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Noise Reduction in Society; and calls on the Government to introduce further measures to make the country a quieter place.]
	International noise awareness day was yesterday. The early-day motion draws attention to the work of the UK Noise Association and the fact that 32 million people in this country are now subjected to excessive levels of noise, with 2.5 million homes having either no or very little noise insulation. Tranquil areas of Britain have virtually disappeared. When my right hon. Friend is making bids for the Queen's Speech—fewer than six months away, and I believe that the process is under way now—will he ensure that appropriate legislation is entered in the pipeline? Our Government have been quiet about noise for far too long.

Peter Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his noisy question. He raises an important issue for all Members of Parliament. We all know that our constituents are increasingly worried about the problem and I am sure that the Secretary of State will want carefully and closely to consider the points that my hon. Friend made. We are implementing an EU directive requiring compliance with noise maps and the production of action plans to manage noise from the transport industry in particular. We are also tackling night noise through antisocial behaviour legislation. We are on the case, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will make any additional points to the Secretary of State.

George Young: On the same issue of noise and antisocial behaviour, when can we have a debate on the report of the Procedure Committee on Sessional Orders, which would allow the House to deal with the unsightly cacophony on Parliament Square? Does the Leader of the House recall telling me last November that that problem would have to be dealt with sooner rather than later; and does he recall telling my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) a month ago that there would shortly be some good news on the matter? Does he also remember that, the last time I raised the matter with him, you, Mr. Speaker, also expressed interest in the debate?

Peter Hain: I think that pretty well all the points that the right hon. Gentleman made in those questions are true. We are on the case, but I am sure that, with his long parliamentary and governmental experience, he will appreciate that it is not a straightforward matter. We are examining whether existing procedures and measures can be utilised more efficiently. That, rather than relying on potentially time-consuming legislation, is my preferred course. We will see how it goes and I hope to report back to the right hon. Gentleman when I can.

Keith Vaz: As my right hon. Friend will know, the enlargement of the European Union will take place on Saturday 1 May. Will he arrange an urgent debate next week so that the House can examine the benefits of enlargement? That is particularly important in view of the scare stories that Conservative Members have put about over the last three months—for example, that millions of people will be getting on easyJet flights from Warsaw and Prague. We need to argue that that will not materialise on Saturday. Will he also arrange, through the Secretary of State for Transport, for the Leader of the Opposition to go to Luton airport to find out whether that actually happens?

Peter Hain: It would be valuable for the Leader of the Opposition to do so, because he was in power as Home Secretary when the accession treaty was signed and these measures first started on their road. As regards my hon. Friend's wider point, we heard the same scare stories when Greece, Portugal and Spain joined the European Union. They were all poor countries—

Phil Woolas: Ireland.

Peter Hain: As my hon. Friend reminds me, Ireland as well. Exactly the same scaremongering took place then. We have put measures in place to stop any abuses of the benefits system. Enlargement will take place, and I assume that both sides of the House support the enlargement of the EU as an important reunification of Europe, which will create greater stability, greater prosperity and protect our environmental standards.

Douglas Hogg: May I join other hon. Members who have pressed for a full two-day debate on Iraq? Those who voted against the war could then restate their view that the war was unnecessary, unjustified, unwise and probably unlawful. We could also express our deep concern at the fact that we are so closely linked in strategy and tactics to the policy of the present United States Administration.

Peter Hain: I disagree with almost everything that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. I notice that he made no reference to the despotic and tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein, which we must remember was responsible for the deaths of 1 million Muslims. I do not know of anyone in history who bears a similar responsibility.

George Foulkes: Would the Leader of the House consider a debate on the conduct of the media? Such a debate would deal not with the gratuitous insults that you and I, Mr. Speaker, receive from the snooty scribblers in their sketches, but with the serious misrepresentations and falsehoods that regularly appear now. It would also cover the unjustified personal attacks on Members of the House, especially Ministers, which cause great distress to families. Those attacks are beyond belief, and existing voluntary arrangements are no longer sufficient to deal with them.

Peter Hain: If the snooty scribblers are here, I think that my right hon. Friend has guaranteed himself a slot in their sketches tomorrow. He has made his point very eloquently.

Michael Jack: During the Easter recess, BAE Systems announced 1,000 redundancies at their plants in Lancashire. In part, that reflects the fact that the Government have yet to conclude discussions with the company over the ordering of tranche 2 of Eurofighter. This week, we learned that the company is considering selling its military shipbuilding capability, and that relationships between the company's senior management and the Government are at rock bottom. Given the company's strategic and industrial importance, will the Leader of the House find time for an early statement by the Secretary of State for Defence on the Government's relationship with BAE Systems?

Peter Hain: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the company's strategic and industrial importance, which the Government have consistently recognised as crucial. His constituency interest means that the right hon. Gentleman, understandably and rightly, has championed the company's cause, but he will understand that there has been a huge investment of public money—as much as £1 billion—in the company in respect of defence technology. The rise in defence spending means that there are great opportunities for the defence industry right across Britain.

Alice Mahon: May I add my voice to those calling for a debate on Iraq? The seriousness of the security situation there makes such a debate essential. However, I want to draw the Leader of the House's attention to the plight of Refreshment Department employees, many of whom face redundancy because of the new hours of the House. One employee—of 30 years' standing, and a trade union representative—was given half an hour's notice of redundancy and then escorted from the premises. That is no way to treat longstanding and loyal members of staff, and it is time the House discussed the matter.

Peter Hain: If that were true, it would indeed be outrageous. Those responsible for such matters, including the members of the Catering Committee, will want to look into what happened. However, I must correct my hon. Friend in one respect: the reforms and changes taking place in Refreshment Department staffing stem from the House's decision to reduce the level of subsidy for hon. Members' catering services, and are not to do with the hours that the House sits. Indeed, catering income has risen since the hours changed. My hon. Friend may have legitimate concerns about the change in the House's hours, but that is not responsible for what is happening in catering.

Pete Wishart: Does the Leader of the House agree with Scotland's First Minister, who has said that Scotland's falling population is perhaps the single biggest challenge facing Scotland in the 21st century? He has identified the fact that Scotland has the fastest falling population of any nation in Europe. May we have a debate to examine the differing immigration requirements of the UK's constituent parts? The UK's difficulties with immigration mean that it may be sensible to devolve the immigration policy to the Scottish Parliament.

Peter Hain: I must acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in taking any opportunity to press his case for Scottish independence. The problem is that no one in Scotland—apart from members of the Scottish National party—agrees with him.

Alan Whitehead: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the recently announced increase in the numbers of teachers and classroom assistants? The House needs to consider how it can be maintained, and the possible effect on that increase of proposals to passport pupils from schools to the private education sector. Another factor that needs to be debated is that the passports could be funded by a two-year freeze on public expenditure.

Peter Hain: If any Government were to adopt those policies, the result would be devastating for schools. Tens of thousands of teachers and classroom assistants have been recruited, but their numbers would be savagely cut. The policy is therefore very mistaken, and the Conservatives, who advocate it, will find themselves in the dock at the next general election.

Andrew Mitchell: Reports in the national press today reveal the serious reservations of business leaders, and especially of the director general of the CBI, about the now-notorious £10 million bung for the trade unions that the Government have included in the Employment Relations Bill. Will the Leader of the House ensure additional time to discuss that specific measure? That is needed because of the sneaky way in which the Government introduced it, and because of the widespread belief that it is an outrageous abuse of taxpayers' money by a political party.

Peter Hain: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can accuse the Government of being sneaky, when the provision was put before the House of Commons as part of proposals for employment reform. Is he seriously suggesting that a modernisation fund to encourage trade unions to be more strategic in the way that they tackle the problems of skills and investment faced by our economy and industry is not a good thing? Surely he wants members of the work force, including those who organise in trade unions, and of management to be forward looking? They should be looking to drive up our skills and our ability to add value so that we can compete in the modern world.

Wayne David: The Leader of the House will be aware that some opponents of the constitutional treaty favour Britain having associate membership of the EU. Can we have a debate on the Floor of the House so that some of us can point out that associate membership of the EU is not full membership?

Peter Hain: Indeed it is not, although some Conservative Members have argued otherwise. Associate membership would be devastating for Britain. It would do more than put us on the edge of the EU, as Giscard said on the "Today" programme this morning; it would cause us to be right out of the picture as far as Europe is concerned. It would threaten British jobs, more than 3 million of which are based in companies that trade with the EU. It would also threaten our ability to be at the heart of what is the world's biggest and richest market, and one of its most important political blocs. [Interruption.] That may be Conservative policy, and their excited chatter underlines that. It will not be the policy of this Labour Government.

Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House say more about the mysterious statutory instrument on benefits for migrants? I suppose that we should be grateful for tiny crumbs, as he has told us that it will be discussed tomorrow. However, will he give more details about the parliamentary timetable for this very important measure, so that we all know what is going to happen, and when? What is his assessment of our vulnerability in the period when it is subject to parliamentary scrutiny? What might happen if it is rejected because of its inequity?

Peter Hain: The order is the same as any other, including the one that was discussed on Tuesday night. However, in the meantime, I want to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his wonderful tie, which is dazzling everyone in the Chamber.

Julie Morgan: Will my right hon. Friend agree to an early debate on women's participation in politics? Is he aware of the report from the Electoral Commission this week, which shows that women are turned off by the macho style of politics in Westminster, and that they are much more likely to vote and to engage in politics if they have a female MP? Also, the Labour party's policy of having all-women short lists was specifically cited as a way forward.

Peter Hain: Yes, I am aware of that report. I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the large number of women now being selected by the Labour party in vacant seats. That compares with the dismal record of the Conservatives—and, I am sorry to say, of the Liberal Democrats and other minority parties. We want more women in Parliament, as women represent more than half the population. [Interruption.] Conservative Members want to know why—that is the authentic voice of the old, male chauvinist, traditional Tory party, barking at me from the benches opposite. We want a Parliament that reflects the country. We do not have that at the moment. As my hon. Friend noted, the Electoral Commission report shows that, on the whole, women candidates tend to do better than men, as women—who are disinclined to vote in the current climate—feel a much greater identification with female MPs.

Martin Smyth: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1051, the main sponsors of which are six of his colleagues.
	[That this House is shocked by reports from the United Nations of a looming major humanitarian catastrophe in the Darfur region of Sudan where 665,000 people have been internally displaced, 453,000 others have been affected and more than 100,000 refugees have fled to Chad; notes with alarm that the top UN official in the Sudan has described the situation as being comparable to the Rwandan genocide; and calls on the UN Security Council to address the situation urgently.]
	What steps are the Government taking to make their views known to the Government of Sudan and through the United Nations to see whether action can be taken? A militia, apparently backed by the National Islamic Front Government, is persecuting Muslims because of their colour.

Peter Hain: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the situation in Darfur, which is indeed dire. The civilian population is in a precarious state, and civilian protection is a serious concern. We have committed more than £9.5 million in humanitarian assistance in response to the crisis, and we are providing key personnel to reinforce the United Nations presence. We will continue to monitor the situation to make sure that we avoid the even worse catastrophe that the hon. Gentleman foresees.

Michael Connarty: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the corporate social responsibility of companies such as BP, which announced its largest ever profit last year but which has also announced, with a cavalier attitude, that it is going to dispose of its weaker businesses, which will include the olefins and plastics plant—the company's only one in the UK—at Grangemouth in my constituency? Some 500 workers there rely on the company for their livelihood, and it seems to me that, in spite of all the whitewash in BP's corporate responsibility documents, it forgets that it made its wealth from the people of the United Kingdom and used our assets, particularly in the North sea, to boost its profits for 30 years. Surely we need a debate to try to align the responsibility such companies have to their shareholders with a responsibility to the work force, to UK plc and to the people of Scotland.

Peter Hain: I am sure that Lord Browne, the chairman of BP, will take careful note of what my hon. Friend has said. Obviously, BP is one of our national champions and one of our most important industries, not least in my hon. Friend's community. It is important that it should continue to enjoy the confidence of its work force and the communities that it serves.

John Taylor: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate about residential blight caused by prospective airport development and the necessary compensation schemes for which we wait and which must be brought forward by the airports themselves? Can we have such a debate soon to end uncertainty for those of my constituents who are affected by that blight?

Peter Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, and uncertainty is in no one's interests. The Secretary of State for Transport will want to take careful note of the points raised and to respond to the hon. Gentleman to ensure that his constituents enjoy the certainty to which they are entitled.

Harry Barnes: Surely we must have a debate on Fallujah, Iraq and the chaos and mayhem there, not so that those of us who opposed the occupation may say "We told you so," but so that we can offer constructive suggestions about the way forward in the difficult circumstances that exist there. One such suggestion would be the greater development of the wider labour and trade union movement in Iraq, which supports neither terrorism nor oppression.

Peter Hain: I am very much in favour of the greater development of the trade union and labour movement in Iraq. Of course, that was not allowed, and was specifically prevented, under Saddam Hussein, who is now, mercifully, not ruling the country in his despotic way. My hon. Friend has many opportunities to raise the situation in Iraq, and I am sure that he will take every one of them.

Bob Russell: A few minutes ago, the Leader of the House drew attention to the importance of a strong, democratic, well established trade union movement to this country's social and economic well-being. I endorse the thrust of his point, but, bearing in mind that a rotten financial institution is terrible for all other financial institutions, does he agree that a rogue trade union, such as ASLEF, also brings the entire trade union movement into disrepute? Will he arrange for the Minister who will be responsible for the good news that he mentioned earlier to tell the House why the trade union movement allows ASLEF to behave as it has under its current executive and former general secretary? Together, they are damaging the good name of all trade unions.

Peter Hain: ASLEF is an independent trade union, governed by the law and the rules, and, as a member of the Trades Union Congress, it accepts its obligations. All sorts of things are going on in the union at present, but I do not think that they justify the hon. Gentleman's over-the-top question.

David Chaytor: This week, the Prime Minister announced his wish that the G8 would give the highest priority to climate change and terrorism in its discussions next year. In view of the chief scientific adviser's recent remark that climate change is a greater threat to civilisation than terrorism, in view of the Government's energy White Paper's argument that energy efficiency is the key way to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, and in view of the long-awaited publication this week of the energy efficiency action plan, will my right hon. Friend find time in the very near future for a debate on the contribution of energy efficiency and productivity to combating the threat of climate change?

Peter Hain: If I could find time for such a debate soon, I would readily do so. I agree that this is one of the central challenges facing the world. Governments such as ours have a proud record in signing up to the Kyoto protocol, leading the way in energy efficiency and pressing for more renewable energy, which will assist with this task, and of protecting the environment in every way. If my hon. Friend applied for a debate and had the opportunity to hold one, it would give us an opportunity to display that record to the whole House.

Adrian Flook: Tomorrow, the unelected south-west regional assembly meets to choose whether to upgrade the A358 in my constituency or to build a new road across the beautiful black downs. The decision will then be conveyed to the Secretary of State for Transport, putting the ball very much in the Government's court. May we have a debate so that those of us who are elected to this place and believe in the A358 option can influence the Government's decision on a matter of vital interest to the west country?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman has many opportunities to press the Secretary of State on that matter, and I am sure that, in the interests of his constituency, he will take them all. I was intrigued to hear him refer to the unelected south-west regional assembly. Does that mean that he is in favour of an elected one?

Gordon Prentice: Thousands of foreign women are trapped in domestic slavery. We read in the papers about mail-order brides and so on. It is a mystery to me why holding another person's passport cannot be made a criminal offence. Will the Leader of the House urge the Home Secretary to make a statement on that pernicious form of exploitation.

Peter Hain: I agree that it is indeed pernicious. The Home Secretary and his Ministers take a close interest in the matter, and I am sure that further information will be sought from my hon. Friend about the precise circumstances that he has properly raised.

Bob Spink: The Independent Monitoring Commission's report of 20 April recommended action against Sinn Fein in response to continued high levels of violence and terrorism. The £120,000 fine imposed is entirely inadequate. When will the Leader of the House give the House the opportunity to consider withdrawing facilities in the House from Sinn Fein as a result of the IMC's recommendations?

Peter Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's wish to raise these matters, and I recognise that he regularly attends business questions. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a full statement on the matter and answered questions for nearly an hour.

Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend today announced a debate on Tuesday 4 May on the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill. I am sure that the strongly held feelings about the Bill on both sides of the House are not lost on him. Will he use his good offices to ensure that—notwithstanding an emergency—no ministerial or other statements will be made on that day that would eat into the already limited time that Back Benchers will have?

Peter Hain: I am aware of the many strong feelings among hon. Members on the matter. I can assure my hon. Friend that more than adequate time will be provided for a full debate in which all the issues can be raised. There are no plans for a statement at the moment, but in politics one can never anticipate what may arise. I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Leader of the House make a statement on the working of Prime Minister's Question Time and will he consider extending it to 40 minutes? As I am sure the Leader of the House is aware, yesterday out of 535 lines in Hansard, 216 were taken up in an exchange between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservative party. Last week, of 652 lines in Hansard, 246 were taken up by that exchange. Some 650-odd other right hon. and hon. Members might wish to catch the Speaker's eye and if the time were extended to 40 minutes, it would give us a better chance.

Peter Hain: When I next need advice on Prime Minister's questions, I shall turn to the hon. Gentleman, as he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of them. For the period that it has operated—in this Parliament and the previous one—the half-hour provided for Prime Minister's questions has been very successful in enabling the House to hold the Prime Minister to account. That is what he wants, and we do not need to extend the time any further.

Kevin Brennan: On the matter of the timing of the Report stage and Third Reading of the Pensions Bill, will my right hon. Friend pass on to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister my thanks for the remarks that he has made in Prime Minister's questions—including this week to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan)—and for the work that has been done by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Chancellor to try to find a solution to the problem of the 60,000 people who have lost their pensions? But will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House also convey the necessity for the Government to produce their conclusions on that work before Report, which will be the last opportunity that the House will have to influence the issue?

Peter Hain: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done on behalf of the Allied Steel and Wire workers in Cardiff, who—like many others—were scandalously robbed of their pensions. We are anxious to resolve the matter if we can in a way that does not read across to other areas and cost taxpayers billions of pounds in extra claims for compensation because of the collapse of private schemes across the country. I am grateful for his comments about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's words yesterday. If there is a way to achieve our aims, there is certainly a will to do so on the part of the Government, and we will do all that we can to secure that outcome.

Andrew Turner: Will the Leader of the House turn his attention back to what the website of The Daily Telegraph calls "Thieving, laziness and utter chaos in the post"? He has dealt with the thieving and laziness allegations, but in my constituency and in Hampshire there is utter chaos, with people not receiving their deliveries until well after lunch. It is not the second delivery that has been abolished, but the first delivery. Can the Minister responsible come to the House and explain how the Post Office can compete with new, electronic forms of communication, when the service now appears to be so unreliable?

Peter Hain: I remember when I was a researcher for the Post Office workers' union, many years ago, that most union members argued that the second delivery was a protection to ensure that the first delivery arrived on time. At any rate, that has been changed. It is a matter for Royal Mail, but I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman made, especially in respect of his constituency. If he has accurately depicted the situation there, it is obviously of great concern.

Council Tax Capping

Nick Raynsford: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about how the Government propose to handle those local authorities that have set excessive budgets for the current year.
	The average increase in council tax in England this year is 5.9 per cent. That is less than half the previous year's increase, and lower than many people predicted. It is also the lowest for the last nine years. A large number of authorities have set lower council tax increases than they originally proposed, following the Government's strong messages to local authorities that high increases were both unacceptable, and unnecessary. They are unacceptable, because people are rightly concerned about increasing council tax bills. They are unnecessary because, for two years running, the Government have provided all local authorities with above-inflation increases in general grant.
	Nevertheless, some authorities' budget and council tax increases are still too high and impose unreasonable burdens on council tax payers. The Government therefore intend to take action against those authorities whose budget requirements they consider to be excessive. That is not something that we are doing lightly. The Government attach great importance to local accountability and believe that first and foremost it is for local authorities to set their council tax and justify it to their local electors. However, we also have a duty to protect council tax payers from increases that we believe to be excessive. Many people, including representatives of pensioner interests, have urged us to use our capping powers.
	After this Government came to power, we replaced the previous Government's crude and universal capping regime with new reserve powers that are more discriminating and flexible. As well as the option of in-year capping, the Secretary of State now has the power to set a notional budget to be used for future comparisons or to cap the following year's budget. The experience of last year, when council tax rose by an average of 12.9 per cent., showed us that not all local authorities can be relied on to behave responsibly when setting their budgets and council tax.
	Of course, it is not just the percentage increase in council tax that is relevant. We have first to decide whether an authority's budget requirement is excessive. In doing so, we have used the following principles. These are described in more detail in a report that is being placed in the Library of the House. In the case of unitary authorities, London boroughs, metropolitan districts, counties, the Greater London authority and the Isles of Scilly, our view is that budget requirements are excessive if they involve an increase of more than 6.5 per cent. over last year's budget and if council tax has increased by more than 8.5 per cent. over the same period.
	Shire districts are in a different position, as this year authorities no longer have to contribute 5 per cent. towards the cost of council tax and housing benefit. While that change has also affected some other local authorities, the amount involved represents a relatively insignificant element of their budgets whereas the change to shire district councils' much smaller budgets represents a considerable saving to them. We have therefore judged their budget requirements to be excessive if they are more than 2 per cent. higher than last year and, again, if council tax has increased by more than 8.5 per cent. As those are small authorities, whose increases in council tax may be correspondingly small in absolute terms, we have introduced a further test by applying those principles only to district councils with a band D council tax for 2004–05 greater than the shire district average.
	Police and fire authorities also have a duty to be efficient and to act responsibly in setting their precepts. At the same time, we recognise that those services face particular pressures. We have therefore judged their budget requirements to be excessive if their budgets are more than 7 per cent. higher than last year and if their precepts have increased by more than 13 per cent. As those are single-purpose authorities, whose precept increases may be relatively small in absolute terms, we have applied a similar de minimis principle to that for shire districts. The principles have therefore been applied only to police and fire authorities with band D precepts for 2004–05 greater than the average for the relevant category of authority—either metropolitan or shire police, and either metropolitan or combined fire authorities.
	Calculations relating to the combined fire authorities and their constituent authorities are based on figures in "The Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Alternative Notional Amounts) Report (England) 2004/05", which was approved by the House on Monday. Those figures take account of the fact that combined fire authorities have become major precepting bodies for the first time this year. The alternative notional amounts for 2003–04 allow like-for-like comparisons to be made with this year.
	As I have mentioned, the Secretary of State has a number of options for dealing with authorities that have set excessive budgets. He may either designate an authority and proceed to cap it in-year, or he may nominate it and then either set a notional budget requirement to be used for future comparisons or designate it for next year.
	According to the principles I have described, four unitary authorities and two shire district councils have set excessive budgets this year. They are Herefordshire, Nottingham, Telford and Wrekin, Torbay, Fenland and Shepway. We are writing to them today informing them that the Secretary of State is designating them for 2004–05 and setting a maximum budget. The authorities have 21 days in which to respond. We will carefully consider the representations that they make and the information that we have required them to send us. We will then either make an order, to be approved by Parliament, designating them at the level of the proposed maximum budget or another level, or we will withdraw the designation and nominate them instead.
	Also according to the principles I have described, three police authorities and five fire authorities have set excessive budgets this year. They are the police authorities of Cumbria, Northamptonshire and West Mercia, and the fire authorities of Bedfordshire, Durham, Essex, Hereford and Worcester and Nottinghamshire. We are writing to the police authorities and four of the five fire authorities informing them that the Secretary of State is nominating them. In the light of the information that we have required them to send us and any information that they themselves want to provide, we will then take decisions about whether to set notional budget requirements for 2004–05 against which increases in 2005–06 will be measured, or to designate them in respect of 2005–06.
	However, one of the fire authorities—Hereford and Worcester—has set very large increases in its budget and council tax precept: a 19.4 per cent. increase in budget and a 29.4 per cent. increase in precept. We are therefore writing to that authority, informing it that the Secretary of State is designating it for 2004–05. The calculation of the maximum amount and the procedure to be followed are the same as for the unitary authorities and the shire districts.
	We believe that the actions that we are taking represent a measured response to the increases that we have seen this year. We are pleased that many authorities have heeded our warnings, but some have not. We will listen carefully to the cases put forward by the authorities that I have named and, where justified, we will use the greater flexibility afforded by our new capping powers. However, authorities should be in no doubt that the Government mean business.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for his usual courtesy in making a copy of his statement available in good time.
	What we have just heard is the culmination of a sorry story of fiddled figures and broken promises ending in a finale that may make the Deputy Prime Minister feel good, but which will do nothing to address the underlying driver of soaring council taxes—fiddled local funding from Whitehall and the never-ending torrent of new burdens, targets and red tapes from his interfering Department.
	In opposition, Labour pledged to end capping and in 1999, it brought in a Bill to create a new capping regime. In 2002, it pledged that no authority rated good or excellent in the comprehensive performance assessment would be subject to capping powers; today two such authorities are in the list that has just been announced, making a mockery of the whole costly CPA process and the billion pounds a year of council tax payers' money that it costs.
	While the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is posturing about keeping council tax down, a senior Treasury official disclosed yesterday to the Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee that the Treasury believes that it could more than double in future. So is it too high already, as the ODPM seems to think, or can it more than double as the Treasury apparently believes? Can the Minister clarify whether the Deputy Prime Minister or the Chancellor is now running council tax policy?
	Until recently, the Government's policy was at least coherent, if grossly unfair. It changed the grant formula to channel funding away from the southern part of the country to the north and to the midlands—that is not my assessment, but that of the Audit Commission in its December 2003 report—while, at the same time, it piled on additional cost burdens and responsibilities that local authorities were required to fund. The Government made no attempt to conceal the fact that their policy would lead to higher council taxes in areas that Ministers considered could afford to pay them.
	So what has changed? Ministers have been galvanised into action of a sort by polling evidence that shows that the public has not been fooled; they know that the responsibility for high council taxes and high council tax increases lies firmly with this Government. However, instead of addressing the real issue of authorities, such as my own in Runnymede, whose budgets have not increased significantly but which have had to increase council tax because of cuts in Government grant, the use of the double threshold—the increase in budget and the increase in tax—in the criteria that the Minister has used for capping means that the Government are ignoring the problems of these councils. The problem is of the Government's, not the councils', making.
	After record increases last year that went unchecked, this year the Government have been panicked into a response. Herefordshire, for example—a good authority according to the Audit Commission—has by no means the largest increase over two years in its group. However, the Minister, by focusing on just one year in his criteria, has allowed local authorities such as Southampton and Portsmouth, with larger increases over the two years, to sneak through the net.
	The use of arbitrary criteria and the double threshold has had perverse effects. Six uncapped unitaries have higher percentage budget increases than Telford and Wrekin and five have higher percentage band D precept increases. Yet Telford and Wrekin gets capped; others do not—fiddled capping on top of fiddled funding. Can the Minister explain why he did not apply a test of absolute council tax levels to the unitaries—distinguishing high-taxing councils from those with a relatively high single-year increase—as he has done with every other category of authority capped?
	For all the authorities designated today for in-year capping, the Minister has carefully avoided detailing the maximum budgets that the Secretary of State will set for those authorities. Can the Minister confirm whether those budgets will be set to bring those authorities to the ceiling increase for their category in each case, or will increases above the ceiling be allowed to avoid drastic service cuts? Will the capping process be arm's length, or will ODPM officials be involved in defining areas for cuts within the budget?
	Can the Minister also tell us what the cost of re-billing for those authorities will be in aggregate? My calculation is that well over £1 million will be spent sending out new council tax bills, necessitating further cuts in front-line services. That is just the cost of sending out the bills; there will be further substantial cash-flow and collection failure costs associated with re-billing.
	The combined fire authorities, five of which are being capped, find themselves in a particularly difficult situation, facing the pressures of the Government's modernisation programme against a very tight timetable and, at the same time, precepting and building reserves for the first time this year. I can tell the Minister, if he is not already aware, that the costs of the regional structures that he has introduced to the fire service are already spiralling out of control of the fire authorities that constitute them. If he is not careful, he will have his very own Holyrood in the regional control structure. In the case of Hereford and Worcester fire authority, whose budget has to be cut in-year as a designated authority, deep cuts in front-line services are certain to be required.
	What the Government have done is apply a sticking plaster to a gaping wound. Unless they are prepared to engage realistically with local authorities about the Government's expectations for service delivery and council tax levels in 2005–06 and beyond, and unless the Government are prepared to commit to fully funding all the additional cost pressures imposed by them, as well as changing the formula to reverse the drain of money away from the south and south east, the future for millions of council tax payers will be one of higher taxes or continuous, incremental cuts in services.
	The capping process, which the Government promised would be a lifeboat for pensioners and those on fixed incomes, has ended up as a shipwreck of a policy—unfair, untransparent and ineffective, and designed to distract public attention from the real underlying problem that is wholly of the Government's making. For all the bluster and all the macho posturing, at the end of the process, council tax payers, councils and local authority service users have once again been let down by Labour.

Nick Raynsford: I was particularly interested in the use of the words "macho posturing" by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). The House will have noticed that there was no indication from the official Opposition about whether they would use capping powers or not. We know very well that when they were in government, they capped—indeed, they capped repeatedly, in a crude and unfair way—but now that they are in opposition, they are trying to give a different impression, so they go and speak to local government, saying, "We're your friends. We won't cap." [Interruption.] Yes, indeed. They give clear indications to local government that they will not use capping powers, but in the House they do not dare say that because they know very well what the public reaction would be.
	The Opposition's policy is non-credible, first because they do not come clean about their attitude towards capping, and secondly because their policy is to freeze local government—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must answer the questions. The statement is not about the Opposition's policy.

Nick Raynsford: I will certainly respond to the questions, Mr. Speaker. I was simply pointing out the inconsistency of the position adopted by the Opposition.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge referred to fiddled figures. The figures are not fiddled. They show generous grant increases to every authority in the country. Every single local authority had an above-inflation grant increase. That never happened when his party was in power. He referred to the capping of good and excellent authorities. Because we had given the pledge last year that we would not cap good and excellent authorities although some of them had very large increases, including Conservative Wandsworth, which led the field with the largest council tax increase last year, we did not cap those authorities. We had given a pledge and we honoured it, but we made it clear this year that, because of the irresponsible behaviour of a small number of authorities that had no regard for prudence, that pledge would no longer apply.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke about posturing to keep council tax down. The Government have acted to get council tax down from the very high levels last year. It is Labour councils that have led the way, with the lowest increases, averaging 4.7 per cent., compared with increases of 5.4 per cent. from Conservative authorities. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the shift of resources. Yes, we accept that resources have been shifted to give a greater reward for deprivation, and it is right that we should do so—[Interruption]—but they have not been shifted in favour of one political party.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) would do well to look at the figures, because he will see that Conservative authorities received an average 6.1 per cent. grant increase this year, compared with only 5.9 per cent. for Labour authorities. I hope he will withdraw the entirely unjustified comment that he made from a sedentary position, implying political bias.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge drew a veil over Runnymede's own council tax increase—more than 17 per cent. He will know that because of the criteria that we have adopted, we are not proposing to nominate or designate Runnymede, but I remind him that Runnymede got a very good grant increase from the Government and we expect it to budget prudently with that grant increase.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the decisions to cap some authorities and not others, and asked why some with ostensibly higher council tax increases were not capped. He will know from the statement, which he has seen in advance, that there are two or three criteria, and only where all the criteria apply will we exercise our powers. That is why some authorities—Runnymede is a good example, as it has a large headline council tax increase, but not a large budget increase—are not within the capping frame. That is the logic of the principles that I outlined.
	The hon. Gentleman said that there would be costs associated with re-billing. There will be costs where re-billing is required, but he will recognise that there will not be re-billing in all cases. In the case of the three police authorities and four of the five fire authorities, we have not suggested re-billing because we are proposing only to nominate.
	Finally, with regard to fire authorities, the Government have invested substantially and will go on investing in the fire service to ensure that it is capable of doing all the tasks that it must perform and saving more lives. That is our objective. We expect authorities to use the extra money that we are providing and to do so prudently, but we also expect them, as Sir George Bain said in his report, to make the most of the available opportunities for achieving economies. That is why we are applying exactly the same principles to fire authorities as we are to police authorities, and we cannot exempt them from capping.
	The hon. Gentleman will recognise that only in the case of Hereford and Worcester, an authority that has gone for an enormously high increase both in budget and in council tax, have we proposed that it should be subject to in-year capping. I hope he will recognise that his party's position is non-credible, and that the Government are acting prudently to defend the interest of council tax payers from irresponsible decisions by some authorities.

Edward Davey: I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance notice of it. I am surprised that as he read it, he did not choke on some of the words he was using.
	How can the Minister impose random and heavy cuts on local services for pensioners and children when the independent Audit Commission said that it is the Government's council tax system that is "fundamentally flawed"? How can the Minister pretend to be the friend of local government and local democracy when he is reverting to the old Tory tricks that he used to vote against?
	The absurdity of capping can be revealed by looking at any of the councils affected, but let us take Shepway. Will the right hon. Gentleman admit, for the record, that the 29 per cent. rise this year comes after a 10-year average rise of just 3 per cent.? Will he acknowledge that whereas the average band D council tax in England has gone up in the past 10 years by 94 per cent., in Shepway it has risen by only 37.4 per cent.? Will he admit that when the Liberal Democrats took over Shepway council from the Conservatives last May, they inherited a council that had suffered years of poor financial management and was spending more than it was raising, with no financial reserves? Why, then, has the Minister not taken account of local circumstances and given local politicians the chance to do what they were elected for, to put right the Tory mess?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) is with a parliamentary delegation meeting His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. My hon. Friend has explained to me that Torbay has the second lowest council tax in Devon, yet is being penalised for a social services overspend from last year's budget set by a Conservative administration. Torbay's rise, whether over the past two or past three years, is still lower than that of Devon or Plymouth, which are not capped. Where is the consistency and fairness in that? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the principles behind that decision?
	Why is the Minister capping Telford and Wrekin when it was deemed an excellent council, and he previously promised "freedoms and flexibilities" to such councils? Ministers are capping councils such as Shepway, Torbay and Telford not because it makes sense for local people, as they will now be hit by Labour cuts, but because capping will get a desperate Government some short-term friendly newspaper headlines.
	As for fire and police authorities, the Minister has again gone for the wrong solution. Surely he should make them more accountable to local people, not less. What discussions did he have with the Home Secretary before deciding on cuts to the police?
	The Government are spinning today that they are the great white knights riding to the defence of local people. In reality, they are the ignorant classroom bully attacking the vulnerable. The Government should not be capping council tax. They should be scrapping it altogether.

Nick Raynsford: There was nothing random about the decisions that we announced to the House today. We have made clear the principles on which we are applying the caps. The people of Shepway will not be terribly impressed by the hon. Gentleman's comments that it is absurd—that was his word—to stop that council imposing a 28.4 per cent. increase in council tax, the highest by any shire district council in the country. The people of Torbay will not think it is absurd for us to take action to save them from the largest increase proposed by any unitary authority in the country.
	The Liberal Democrats do not have a good record on this. The average increase in council tax this year is 4.7 per cent. for Labour authorities, 5.4 per cent. for Tory authorities and 6 per cent. for Liberal Democrat authorities. No wonder the Liberal Democrats are trying to defend their high-spending friends. They are clearly a high-tax party. There is no justification for the hon. Gentleman's criticisms.
	The hon. Gentleman is not right to claim that the Audit Commission identified the Government's policies as the largest single source of blame for council tax increases. On the contrary—James Strachan, the chair of the Audit Commission, has made it very clear that there is no single source of blame, so speaking in those terms is not helpful. I hope the hon. Gentleman will do his homework more thoroughly in future.

Gerry Steinberg: Is the Minister aware that Durham fire authority has one of the best records in the whole country, but has now been one of the worst-resourced authorities for many years? Is he also aware that, on a number of occasions, my colleagues and I have met Ministers who agree that Durham has a problem, mainly because of pension payments that come from the revenue fund? We now have a situation in which the Government will not adequately fund the service in Durham and will not allow the fire authority to fund itself. If there is an unforeseen problem because of underfunding in Durham, who will take the blame? Who will be responsible—an efficient fire authority that has done its best in difficult circumstances, or Ministers who won't damn well listen?

Nick Raynsford: The Government are funding fire authorities, including Durham, which received a 3.5 per cent. increase in grant this year. Like other fire authorities, Durham is also benefiting from the substantial investment that the Government are putting into the new dimension programme to equip fire brigades far more effectively to cope with the new dimension of terrorist threats. The fire authority has been put forward for nomination, which means that it will not be required to cut its budget in the current year. We are proposing to nominate the authority, and depending on what evidence it gives to us in the next 21 days—as I have made it clear, we are open to representations from authorities in that period—we will decide how to take things forward.
	I assure my hon. Friend that we are committed to enabling all fire authorities to deliver their service effectively, and in a cost-effective way that does not impose unreasonable burdens on council tax payers.

Tim Collins: Does the Minister accept that his decision to cap Cumbria police authority has been greeted with concern and alarm by many in the county, including senior police officers? Is he aware that Cumbria has succeeded in recruiting an extra 87 police officers in the past three years, but that if it had received all those paid for in additional council tax, it would have had another 165 officers? In other words, if we had been reliant on Home Office funding, we would have seen a cut of 78 police officers. A MORI poll showed that 79 per cent. of people in Cumbria support extra council tax to pay for extra police officers, which is also supported by all three main parties in the county. The result of his decision, on a day on which violent crime in Cumbria has been confirmed to have risen by 19 per cent. in the past year, is that there will be fewer police officers than everyone in the county believes to be necessary. Will he meet a cross-party delegation of MPs from the county, plus the police authority, in the next 21 days, so that it can explain to him why he has got this matter badly wrong?

Nick Raynsford: Of course we will accept representations. I do not know whether it will be possible to arrange for a delegation to see us, but we will certainly accept representations from the Cumbria police authority, as from all affected authorities. The hon. Gentleman's own figures, however, demonstrated the success of the Government's policy. The substantial increase in the number of police officers in Cumbria has been the result of substantial additional investment.
	It is proposed that Cumbria's council tax will increase by 15 per cent. this year. At £150, the amount will be 24   per cent. higher than the average for shire police authorities. The authority's budget has increased by 7.3 per cent., which, along with that of West Mercia police authority, is the highest increase for any police authority. Clearly, it behoves all authorities, whether they are police, fire or other authorities, to look at their costs in comparison with those of other authorities and to try to operate in the most cost-effective way. I hope that the authority will do that, but as I said, we will be happy to receive representations from it.

Eric Martlew: The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) failed to tell us that in 1996, the last year of Conservative Government, there were 1,115 police officers in Cumbria, while at the end of this year, there will be 1,231—an increase of 116.
	The Minister has fallen into the trap of imposing a universal cap, whereas local people should be able to take the decision. As has been pointed out, a MORI poll says that the vast majority of people in Cumbria were in favour of increasing tax for the police. To some extent, the police authority was misled by indications that, if the increase was less than 15 per cent., it would not be capped. I should be grateful if the Minister agreed to receive an all-party delegation to discuss this matter. I do not think that what has been announced is particularly drastic for Cumbria police, but it will create a problem for us.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the increased investment to which I referred in responding to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). There has been a substantial increase in police numbers, and those numbers are not affected by our proposal this year. We are not proposing to cap Cumbria police authority this year; we are proposing a nomination. We will obviously listen to representations, and I shall take on board my hon. Friend's request for an all-party delegation to put forward whatever concerns it wishes to express on behalf of Cumbria police authority. When we have received the representations and considered any points that are put to us, we will reach final decisions, but I can assure him that this is not a universal cap, because it is proposed only to nominate Cumbria police authority, and not to designate it, so there would be no reduction in this year's budget.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall try to call every hon. Member who has been standing, but I hope that forthcoming contributions will be briefer than those that we have heard on behalf of Cumbria. That would be extremely helpful.

Kevan Jones: When I was in local government, I always thought that capping was both a crude and a crass way of controlling local government finance. My position has not changed, unlike that of the Minister, whose statement reinforces the reasons why. Durham fire authority has worked responsibly over the past 12 months with ODPM officials to strip out £1.3 million from the budget. As the authority is only 1.6 per cent. over the cap, why did that discussion and work not continue? Having been added to the list, Durham could face re-billing, which would cost £700,000 and do nothing to improve fire safety or good relations between local government and Whitehall in Durham.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend may have misunderstood the statement, as there is no question of Durham fire authority being required to re-bill. We are not proposing to designate Durham fire authority; we are simply proposing to nominate it. That indicates that we will either set a maximum budget for 2005–06, or make a notional budget for 2004–05 and take that into account when considering next year's budget and council tax increases. There is no question of re-billing in the current year.
	My hon. Friend referred to the work that we have been doing with Durham, along with other fire authorities, to help to modernise the fire service, improve the service that is delivered to local people and save lives. We will go on doing that, but it is not possible to have individual discussions with individual authorities when dealing with an issue about using capping powers that must be applied across the board in a fair and impartial way to all authorities, according to set principles. That is what we have done.

Anthony Steen: I congratulate the Minister on capping Torbay, a third of which is in my constituency. Does he agree that the Torbay Liberals have been cocking a snook at the Government by increasing council tax by more than five times the rate of inflation and promising £100 cashback to every council tax payer if they got into office? Is he aware that, rather than cutting out waste, the Torbay Liberal Democrats favour surveys on tombstones, which they say it is their statutory duty to carry out on health and safety grounds, but have closed the loos in Torbay because they say that it is not their statutory duty to maintain them? What can he do to prevent Torbay council, which is facing capping, from causing council tax payers further inconvenience?

Nick Raynsford: I cannot say that I will visit Torbay to see the local facilities, but Torbay council should operate prudently and cautiously. It received a generous 6.9 per cent. grant increase from the Government this year, and the proposed 9.9 per cent. council tax increase is excessive. This is not, however, the first time that it has made large council tax increases, because it also made them when it was under Conservative control.

Peter Luff: On balance, I welcome the Minister's comments about Hereford and Worcester fire authority and West Mercia constabulary, but I am not sure whether the Labour chairman of the fire authority will see it that way. Does he understand that the consequences could be serious, because those authorities can no longer impose the Chancellor's stealth tax to make up the gap between what the Government expect them to provide and what they can provide under the rigged funding formula, which monstrously discriminates against Herefordshire and Worcestershire?

Nick Raynsford: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments. He will recognise that we are trying to proceed in a measured, cautious and responsible way to ensure that authorities budget prudently. However, the figures show that the Government have given substantial additional grant to all authorities: for the past two years, every authority in England has received an above-inflation grant increase, which did not happen when the Conservative party was in power.

Alan Simpson: Will the Minister urgently meet the local authority in Nottingham to discuss his capping proposals? The city is affected by a degree of consternation, because, prior to the authority's inclusion in The Sunday Times lists this week, there had been no indication either at a national level or through the Government office for the region that the budget in any way fell foul of Government guidelines on capping. If the cap is a result of a misunderstanding about the apportionment of costs previously attributable to the fire authority, will the Minister discuss the matter with the local authority and the three local Members of Parliament, which will hopefully resolve the confusion and disagreement on an amicable and constructive basis?

Nick Raynsford: We will certainly listen to representations from Nottingham, as with any other authority, but the local authority should not be confused. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), and I repeatedly said in this House that we expected authorities to budget prudently this year, and that we would use our council tax powers if authorities did not do so.
	In mid to late-February, an evening paper in Nottingham carried an article speculating whether the council tax increase would actually be much higher than that suggested by the authority. Because the authority's figures implied that the increase would be low, we did not to invite it in for a meeting. The evening paper carried a comment from an ODPM spokesperson, who said that if Nottingham proceeded with its 7.8 per cent. increase, which was the figure quoted at that time, it would be in the danger zone for capping, so the evidence that Nottingham would be open to capping if it did not moderate its budget is clear. However, I am happy to receive representations from Nottingham, and I hear my hon. Friend's request for a delegation.

Paul Keetch: As the only hon. Member from Herefordshire who is present in the Chamber, I tell the Minister that the people of Herefordshire will be triply affected by today's announcements that Herefordshire council is being capped, that the fire authority is being capped and that the police authority is being nominated. Is he aware of the attitude of the leader of Herefordshire council, who tries to blame almost everybody else for the council tax rise? The council blames the Government, the previous Administration and the police and fire authority. Indeed, the deputy leader of the council blames me for the cap because I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister about my constituents. Will the Minister tell the House that the only people who are to blame for today's announcement are the Conservative and independent leaders of Herefordshire council? Will he assure the council and my constituents that projects that we have worked for in Herefordshire for a very long time, such as flood defence for the city of Hereford and the Rotherwas relief road, will not be affected by our council's poor management, and that the Government will listen on the campaigns that we have worked so hard for?

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and note that his tone is rather different from that of his Front Benchers. He did not describe as "absurd" our approach to Herefordshire council, West Mercia police authority or Hereford and Worcester fire authority. Herefordshire council received an excellent 7.5 per cent. grant increase, and, given those circumstances, it is difficult to understand why it is trying to proceed with a very large council tax increase. We will obviously listen to representations from Herefordshire council and other interested parties, but the Government's action is a measured response to unreasonable pressure, which will cause considerable hardship and anger among council tax payers in the hon. Gentleman's county if it is not dealt with.

Graham Allen: Members of Parliament from Nottingham, including my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr.   Heppell), who sits on the Front Bench, are surprised by the announcement. The excellent and improving Nottingham City council has worked closely with the Government to tackle chronic problems with education and law and order. The surprise stems from the fact that we had no letter of warning, unlike other authorities, and that we were not called in to meet Ministers or officials, unlike other authorities.
	We cannot make policy on the back of what may or may not appear in the local paper. We were assured by departmental officials at the Government office for the region level that we were on course for a reasonable settlement. I hope that the Minister will concede that there has been a communications breakdown, to put it charitably, and that he will reinforce the point, which he has already expressed, that he will meet the leader of the council and the chief executive to allow Nottingham to do what it wants to do and come into compliance immediately.

Nick Raynsford: I agree with my hon. Friend's final view, but I must say that our position was not based on newspaper reports—it was based on the figures in the council's own press releases of 3 March and 9 March, both of which referred to a 4.5 per cent. increase in council tax. If he is saying that the ODPM should have invited in the authority for a warning meeting, all I can say is that we would have done so if the authority had produced the figures. We did not receive any figures, even via the Government office for the region, indicating that a warning meeting was necessary; instead, the evidence suggested that the council was considering a much lower increase.

Mark Francois: Understandably, today's announcement has caused considerable concern in Essex. In the conclusion to his statement, the Minister said, "We will listen carefully to the cases put forward by the authorities that I have named." May I take him entirely at his word? Is he prepared to accept a delegation, including the chief fire officer, from the Essex combined fire authority—I would also like to be involved—so that we can put our case to him in person? He knows that the situation is complex and that there are a number of nuances, not least the fact that, in this one-off situation, the fire authority has had to establish a sizeable reserve for a service that deals with a county containing more than 1.5 million people. Will he listen to us and allow us to put our case to him face to face, because we would be grateful?

Nick Raynsford: I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said to all hon. Members who have made similar requests, that we will certainly listen carefully to any representations, and I will certainly consider his request to receive a delegation. He knows that the process must be completed within 21 days because of the statutory obligation. I do not want to fail to consider everyone simply because it is not possible to programme all meetings into that period, but I will do my best.

Sally Keeble: Is my right hon. Friend aware that law and order is one of my constituents' biggest concerns? My local police authority has caused some problems, which were recently highlighted in a critical inspection report. Will he therefore carefully examine the information from Northamptonshire police on how grant decisions have impacted disproportionately on it? Will he also consider next year's position and examine the particular service difficulty problems, so that my constituents experience both reasonable council tax bills and a steady improvement in policing that is consistent with the Government's increased investment?

Nick Raynsford: I hear my hon. Friend's comments. She is right that concerns have been expressed about Northamptonshire police authority, and my colleagues in the Home Office drew my attention to them. We will do all that we can to help the police authority improve its performance and meet the needs and expectations of the people whom it is there to serve. It has received a large budget increase—the third highest for a police authority in the country—and under the principles that I set out, it is not possible to exempt it. My hon. Friend knows that we do not propose to cap it this year, and simply propose to nominate it. I hope that that gives her some comfort, and we will certainly listen to representations from her and anyone else affected by its work.

John Maples: It will come as a great disappointment to people in my constituency that he has not capped Warwickshire county council and Warwickshire police authority. The county council precept has risen by 6.5 per cent. this year on top of 8 per cent. last year and 12 per cent. the year before; and the police authority precept has gone up by 8 per cent. this year on top of 15 per cent. last year and 20 per cent. the year before. People simply cannot afford those inflation-busting increases. Surely, those authorities are either setting responsible budgets, in which case the Government are not giving them enough grant, or setting irresponsible budgets, in which case the Government should cap them.

Nick Raynsford: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I wish that he would speak more often to his Front-Bench colleagues, who take a rather different view on capping. We looked carefully at all relevant authorities, including Warwickshire county council and Warwickshire police authority. The hon. Gentleman will have heard the principles that I set out, and he will know that neither the county council nor the police authority fell within those criteria. We want all authorities to budget prudently—that is the message that the Deputy Prime Minister and I have given repeatedly in this House, and which I gave again today—and we expect them to look very carefully at reducing even further the increases that they have made in the current year. The capping principles are measured and are designed, unlike the old capping regime, not to penalise crudely all authorities. Neither Warwickshire council nor Warwickshire police authority came under those measures this year, but they should certainly keep a close watch on their budgets.

Phil Sawford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Northamptonshire is currently funded below the formula funding level and that as a result it has a shortfall of some £2.2 million? To bridge that funding gap, the police authority has introduced a precept that is perhaps higher than it otherwise would have wished. In those circumstances, does my right hon. Friend believe it reasonable or fair to penalise the police authority?

Nick Raynsford: We are not penalising the police authority, but nominating it because its budget increase was the third highest of any in the country and involved a significant increase in the precept imposed on council taxpayers. I have to say to my hon. Friend that the record shows that Northamptonshire police authority has received above-inflation grant increases in each of the past two years. Funding will continue to go into Northamptonshire. We want to work with the police authority to meet the needs of its people and to provide the high-quality service that they expect.

Richard Younger-Ross: Surely today's statement represents a failure of Government policy with regard to fire authorities. After all, the Minister was advised by fire authorities that trouble would be caused by the modernisation process and transitions to combined authorities. Under his proposals, 20 per cent. of fire authorities are to be capped. When he talks to those authorities, will he ensure that fire safety comes first, not his accountant's slide rule? As for what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), I think that he is suffering from selective memory and using selective statistics. This is clearly a case of selective authorities.

Nick Raynsford: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, who served on the Committee that considered the Fire and Rescue Services Bill earlier this year, that the Government are absolutely committed to saving lives and to reducing the number of deaths, and we have put in place many measures to help to improve the efficiency of fire authorities all over the country. That is compatible, as the Bain report said, with making significant efficiency savings, for which there is considerable scope. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman and his party have not been more assiduous in looking for ways in which rather outdated and expensive practices can be reformed to ensure that fire authorities provide a high-quality service that saves lives and meets the needs of their communities. That is what we are committed to doing, and nothing in today's statement is incompatible with it. All that we are doing, unlike the hon. Gentleman's party, is protecting council tax payers from unreasonable rises in council tax.

Peter Bradley: I cannot say that I welcome the statement. I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my disappointment that such a well-regarded authority as Telford and Wrekin faces capping. There cannot be a better example of the tension between simultaneously delivering high-quality services and low council tax increases.
	I welcome the opportunity for representations. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that Telford and Wrekin faces particular difficulties, including its historically low council tax, its low asset base, and the implications for its funding of the population undercount? Does he agree that capping for 0.1 per cent. above the limit may not be the most appropriate, constructive or proportionate way forward; and that the best outcome for the council and the community would be to avoid capping and protect services this year, while working constructively with the council towards a more sustainable council tax increase next year?

Nick Raynsford: I welcome the constructive approach that my hon. Friend has adopted. I certainly share his disappointment, but I note that Telford and Wrekin received very generous grant increases of not only 8 per cent. this year, but 8.7 per cent. last year and 7.4 per cent. the year before that. The Government are making substantial grant increases, and we expect authorities to budget prudently to ensure that they do not impose unreasonably large council tax increases.
	I take my hon. Friend's point, but he will know that in the case of any set of principles, some authorities will be just above and some will be just below. That poses questions about whether it would be appropriate to require re-billing. We will certainly listen carefully to any representations that he or Telford and Wrekin council wish to make.

David Wright: I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) and express my disappointment that West Mercia police authority has been capped. It is a large, rural police authority area that is spending its additional council tax income on recruiting new police officers and community support officers. Indeed, in the past year we have seen 38 new police officers and 21 new community support officers in the constituencies of Telford and the Wrekin. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the nomination process will not place those officers under threat and that the budget will be protected to ensure that police services for the community throughout West Mercia continue to improve?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend has taken a great interest, as has his hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), in the position in Telford and Wrekin. On the West Mercia police authority, he will be aware that the budget increase that it proposes is the largest, along with that of Cumbria, of any police authority. It would therefore be wrong of the Government not to consider taking action. As he will know, we are proposing to nominate West Mercia not to cap in-year. I therefore assure him that there is no reason why any changes should be made this year to what the police authority plans to do to meet the needs of the people of West Mercia.

Alan Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the light of the generous increases in council tax funding that the Government have recently supplied and the abatement of council tax increases among local authorities in the past year, it is particularly disappointing that it should be necessary to introduce capping? That is a sad day for the durable nature of central-local relations in future, irrespective of whether the capping is sophisticated and selective or crude and universal.
	Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the progress of the balance of funding review that he set up a little while ago? Will he ensure that when it reaches its conclusions its report will be published? Does he agree that the genuine difficulties with several issues relating to council tax, including gearing and the balance of funding, should be given a wide airing to assist with longer-term policy considerations about a durable settlement on local government taxation and the balance of funding between central and local?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend is a great expert on these subjects and he raises some pertinent points. I agree that it is a sad day when capping becomes necessary, but he will recognise that following the substantial increases in Government grant it is unacceptable for large increases again to be imposed on council tax payers. We made it very clear that last year's increases were unacceptable, and we therefore had no option but to take action.
	We are making good progress on the balance of funding review. We had a further meeting this week, and we are looking carefully at all the relevant issues. As my hon. Friend knows, local government finance is a minefield, and those who promise quick and easy solutions, as the Liberal Democrats keep doing with their promise of a problem-free local income tax, are no more than snake oil salesmen offering an entirely illusory promise. We are considering all the issues carefully and thoroughly, and I hope that we shall produce our report this summer.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Lords Reasons for insisting on certain of their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, considered.

New Clause
	 — 
	Application of Part 1

Lords Reason: 1B
	The Lords insist on their Amendment 1 to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following Reason—
	Because responsibility for drawing up regional spatial strategies should lie with the elected representatives of the communities affected.

Keith Hill: I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof, in page 2, line 7, at end insert—
	'(2A)   The Secretary of State must not give a direction under subsection (1) in relation to a body unless not less than 60% of the persons who are members of the body fall within subsection (2B).
	(2B)   A person falls within this subsection if he is a member of any of the following councils or authorities and any part of the area of the council or authority (as the case may be) falls within the region to which the direction (if given) will relate—
	(a)   a district council;
	(b)   a county council;
	(c)   a metropolitan district council;
	(d)   a National Park authority;
	(e)   the Broads authority.'.
	Lords Reason 3B and the Government motion to insist on disagreement.

Keith Hill: Before we move on to the substance of the Government's proposed amendment in lieu, I would be grateful if I could detain the house for a few moments in order to draw hon. Members' attention to just how willing my colleagues and I have been to listen to genuine issues of concern during the passage of this Bill through both Houses. Hon. Members will recall that we did not get the opportunity at the previous stage of the Bill in this House to debate those issues on which the Government had listened and tabled amendments when we could see that such genuine concerns had been raised.
	So let me remind the House that we have introduced amendments that guarantee a statutory role in the regional planning process for county councils and other authorities with strategic planning expertise, through changes to clause 4. These amendments followed extensive discussions with the Local Government Association and the county councils network, and those organisations have undertaken to play their full part in making the new strategic planning arrangements work.
	We have also introduced amendments that give more influence to the community and other interested parties through the new clause, introduced on Third Reading in the Lords, introducing the regional public participation statement. We have accepted the removal of statements of development principles provisions—that is in clause 41—and retained and strengthened outline planning permission in schedules 6 and 9.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just said that he did not get time in the earlier stages of the Bill to discuss some of the amendments that the Government have accepted, and which he is now detailing. Perhaps he did not get time because the Government had imposed a timetable on those proceedings, which meant that discussion was not allowed. Surely it is an abuse for the Minister to start going through those measures now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman will realise that that is not a matter for the Chair. I suspect that it is more a matter for the usual channels.

Keith Hill: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I might say to the hon. Gentleman, through you, that, as one former Deputy Chief Whip to a current one, I know exactly what game he is playing at this juncture.
	We have strengthened the application of the sustainable development clause—that is clause 38—and introduced amendments to the standard application form provisions to require access and design statements in appropriate circumstances. That is in clause 42. In addition to these amendments, we have also again listened to the debate and brought forward amendments on mezzanine floors, on the requirement to give reasons for substantive decisions, to introduce provisions for temporary stop notices and for appeal on second applications, and today we are also seeking the agreement of the House to amend the major infrastructure provisions to require an economic impact report.
	Against the background of this substantial package of concessions, I have to express my strong disappointment that we are here again today to debate Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 3. I find it difficult to understand the grounds on which these amendments are being pursued. The effect of amendment No. 1 would be to end any system of regional planning where there was not an elected regional assembly. I cannot believe that that is the serious intention of either the official Opposition or the Liberal Democrats, and I am particularly surprised that the Lib Dems continue to cleave to this amendment. I am absolutely certain that they share the Government's belief in the need for strong regional planning.
	Regional planning policies that form part of the development plan are essential to address the particular opportunities and challenges faced by an individual region. Effective regional planning policy is vital to tackle historic regional disparities and respond to the challenges of the modern knowledge economy. We need a system for strategic planning that is based around areas that are interdependent on the ground, not one that is constrained by administrative boundaries. County boundaries simply do not work as the basis for effective strategic planning. Many strategic planning issues cut across county boundaries and are best dealt with at regional or sub-regional level.

David Taylor: The region that produced the Minister and in which I still live, the east midlands, has no elected regional assembly. There is some merit in the amendment—although I shall not appear in the Division Lobby with those who are promoting it—in that our region has a Nottingham-Derby dominated caucus that is dumping on the northern parts of Leicestershire the adverse implications of uncontrolled airport expansion, which would be covered by this type of approach to planning. Does the Minister not see that, in the absence of an elected regional assembly, such circumstances can sometimes emerge?

Keith Hill: I share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for an elected regional assembly for the east midlands, the region of his and my birth. In the meantime, however, before that particular utopia is secured, we are best to go forward with the existing regional planning structures, which provide precisely for the kinds of exchanges that could limit the undesirable development mentioned by my hon. Friend. As ever, he and I essentially are on the same tack: two souls with a single mind on this subject. I am grateful that he will be joining me in the Division Lobby; that has not invariably been the case, as he and I well know.
	There are many examples of the existing regional planning bodies coming forward with solutions to the cross-boundary problems that have bedevilled us for years. But under the current system those solutions are hard to put into practice. The system itself is a barrier. However good the solutions are, however much work has gone into preparing them, and however much support they have, they will be only a material consideration when it comes to deciding planning applications, and structure plans can delay them or prevent them from happening.
	I know that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), who speaks for the Lib Dems, has concerns about accountability, which I understand and appreciate. I have reflected very earnestly on a practical way to respond to these concerns, and I hope that the democratic guarantee that I offer in amendment (a) will commend itself to the hon. Gentleman. I have to say that the alternatives that one might contemplate offer a recipe for delay, obfuscation and perhaps litigation.
	Most uncharacteristically, the approach of the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), smacks just a little of cynicism and opportunism. The Conservative party appears to combine support for regional planning for regions with elected regional assemblies with an equally avid determination that none will actually be established, and with an express intention to campaign against them in regional referendums. He and I both know that this amendment would effectively mean no regional planning. However, regional planning guidance was introduced by the Conservative Administration in 1990, with the publication of RPG15. The Conservative party is the parent of regional planning. This is a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the inconsistency of his position.
	Lords amendment No. 3 is not acceptable because it imposes the burden and bureaucracy of blanket sub-regional planning irrespective of whether it is needed or adds value. Surely it is also defective in that it would require those plans to be drawn up by county councils and other authorities with strategic planning expertise, but would exclude others who may have an essential and valuable role to play: district councils or the regional development agencies, for example.
	Our package as a whole is the right approach to sub-regional planning and gives a properly central role for county councils and other authorities with strategic planning expertise. The Bill and our draft guidance to regional planning, planning policy statement 11, in dealing with sub-regional strategies, makes it clear that those should be prepared for areas that are interdependent on the ground and that therefore need a distinct set of sub-regional policies. The Bill and our guidance guarantee that county councils and other authorities with strategic planning responsibilities will advise, and they make it clear that, where appropriate, those bodies are expected to lead on this work.
	I appreciate that this is an important issue to many, and particularly to county councils. There are anxieties about decisions on which areas on the ground warrant a sub-regional strategy. There are concerns about ensuring that counties and other authorities play a full part, and I appreciate them and the fact that perhaps they have not come much to the fore in earlier debates because of the importance of other issues. I believe, however, that our approach to sub-regional planning, which is flexible and practical, is the right one for our communities and our planning system. It does not prescribe an across-the-board, universal requirement for sub-regional plans but fully supports the involvement of sub-regional partners where there is a clear case for sub-regional structures and planning. That will happen within the overall framework of advice from and consultation with local authorities and a local government-led regional planning body.
	I am reasonably confident that it would be otiose, as we say in this place, to make specific provision in the Bill for an essentially flexible and locally and regionally driven arrangement. I note the concerns on the matter, however, and in the light of those, let me say that I am prepared to review the package ahead of the Bill's return to the other place.
	Meanwhile, we ought to reflect on what these Lords amendments would mean. Lords amendment No. 3 would provide for sub-regional plans as part of the regional spatial strategy, with boundaries chosen by the regional planning body because the boundaries of counties do not fit for this purpose. I think that I have made it clear that the difference between us relates to how extensively this principle should be applied. I need to point out to the House, however, that that approach would simply not happen or would be considerably delayed under Lords amendment No. 1.
	I shall now turn to amendment (a). The regional planning process needs to be driven forward by bodies able to represent the region and take a strategic view. Regional chambers are best placed to fulfil that role. We are not suddenly transferring powers from counties to regions. We are removing a filter that has slowed down the expression of strategic regional policies in local plans. We are clearing out a system that allows out-of-date structure plans to take precedence over up-to-date regional plans. Chambers are, of course, not directly elected, but they are representative of both local authorities and wider stakeholders in the region. Local authority members represent their local authority on the regional planning body. Equally, other stakeholder group members, such as business or the voluntary sector, will speak for the interests that they represent.
	Where elected regional assemblies are established, it is right that they should take over responsibility for regional planning. But we should not conflate that with reforming the planning system—that reform needs to happen now. Of course, we need the safeguard of democratic accountability, and it needs to be the best one possible, consistent with our current governance arrangements. Local authorities speak for their communities—that is what they are elected to do. This Bill, along with its regulations and guidance, guarantees that theirs will be the loudest voice in regional planning. Local authorities are in the majority on regional chambers, which will be the regional planning bodies. Where there is consensus, the local authority's view will prevail in the RPB's work.
	I recognise the views expressed, and I am willing to move, as in so many other areas, to deal with the concerns. Amendment (a) therefore highlights the leading role of local authorities and provides a statutory guarantee for the future. The Secretary of State will not be able to recognise a body as a regional planning body unless at least 60 per cent. of its members are drawn from county councils, unitary authorities, district councils, national parks authorities or the Broads Authority. I commend the proposal to the House.

John Hayes: As ever, the Minister for Housing and Planning makes an eloquent and persuasive case. He started by listing the concessions that the Government have already made. I needed no convincing of what a decent man he is, or that he is prepared to listen to the Opposition's arguments, which are also persuasive, as he has acknowledged. He is moving ever closer to the position articulated by Conservatives and even by Liberal Democrats. Indeed, it is such a persuasive case that it has driven the Liberal Democrats and us—I speak personally in this respect—into a union. Members of the House who know me well will know how difficult that is to achieve, and how important these matters must therefore be.
	The Minister says that his whole strategy would be destroyed if he accepted the Lords amendments. That is not true. The proposals on sub-regional strategies, as requested by Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members in the other place, would add to the Government's intent of producing a system that is coherent and consistent. He says that they will lead to obfuscation and delay. If the price is a system that is effective, truly representative, and that allows properly for the sensitivities and considerations of localities to be taken into account in drawing up these plans, it is a price that we, as democrats, are obliged to pay. Democracy is often inconvenient and sometimes slower than systems that are less democratic, but it is none the worse for that. All Members of the House must defend the right of ordinary people to have their say in these matters, which affect the quality of their lives so directly, and I know that the Minister would be first in the vanguard of that defence. He therefore, ultimately, makes an unconvincing case.
	I find—[Interruption.] I see that the Minister is taking advice from a senior colleague, and perhaps he is going to move even closer to our position. I cannot believe that with his good offices, and with the spirit in which he has spoken to the House today, knowing that the other place is ever willing to try to find a way through these problems, a solution cannot be found. Perhaps it will not be found until this House—or the Opposition at least—has taken the opportunity to press these matters to a vote.
	The Minister must, I think, acknowledge that, not for the first time, the Lords speak for the people and the Government speak merely for themselves. That is not just my view. Perhaps surprisingly, the Minister's noble Friend Lord Rooker said in the other place
	"Noble Lords are much more in touch in some ways with what is happening than is sometimes the case elsewhere in this building."
	He recognised that the Lords are often able to articulate a case on behalf of the common man in a way that is sometimes lost to those who have grown grand and privileged on the luxuries and benefits of office. That is not, of course, a position in which we find ourselves, but perhaps one day we shall be subject to the same temptations. I hope that we will resist them in true Tory spirit.
	I note that when word goes out around the Palace that Hill and Hayes are talking again, the Tea Rooms and Restaurants empty and Members flood the Chamber. The Labour Bench is particularly well populated for this debate, by Members who knew that they would be subject to a rare treat in the form of the Minister's peroration.
	The Minister accused me of cynicism, but let me say this: the Lords have properly identified the substantial democratic deficit that lies at the heart of the Government's intentions. I hold no candle for regional assemblies, but I do make a robust case for democratic legitimacy and proper accountability, and that is what we are really debating today.
	Three points need to be made. To avoid repetition, for as a matter of habit I try to do that—for the sake of clarity and the record I should perhaps say that, as a matter of habit, I avoid repetition—let me say that the case that the Lords make is threefold.
	First, we have the argument about democratic legitimacy, well made both here and there. The idea that we should transfer or indeed confirm powers—I know the Minister makes the case that they were originally given to regions by a Conservative Government—to bodies on which there are no elected people seems to me unacceptable, and I suspect that it is unacceptable to many Labour Members. We heard, for example, the concerns of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), who often speaks and, as the Minister says, votes with his conscience rather than merely on the instructions of heavy-handed Government Whips. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark) shakes his head. He is not one of those; he is one of the more human faces at the Whips Office. There must, however, be others who are altogether more heavy-handed.
	The second key issue is that of effective accountability. That means having access to where decisions are made, and having faith in the process. The further we move the exercise of political power from the people, the less trust the people are likely to have in the exercise of political power. The plans must be made close to people, and people's loyalty, faith and adherence must be inspired. They must believe in the plans. For, as my noble Friend Lord Hanningfield said in the other place, this is a distinctly personal matter. That gentleman, who has a distinguished record both in the upper House and in local government, said:
	"There is no more personal thing in local government than planning. The Government should not think that they can ignore the democratic processes."
	Lord Marlesford, who spoke persuasively, said:
	"the Government somehow believe that the higher the level at which strategic planning is done, the better."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 April 2004; Vol. 660, c. 565–9.]
	In fact, the opposite is true. It is of course important for us to have a bigger view, but that bigger view must take proper account of the concerns of local communities; and the lower down the system those concerns can be expressed effectively, the better. The involvement of local communities confers legitimacy on the plans that ultimately emerge.
	That brings me to the third issue: sensitivity to local people, understanding of local needs, and responsiveness from a system that, as the Minister has acknowledged on previous occasions, is often seen as esoteric, bureaucratic and excessively burdensome—one might even say Byzantine.
	We remain unconvinced by the Government's case, although we welcome the Minister's spirit and tone. I do not find that surprising. I have found the right hon. Gentleman to be a receptive Minister who genuinely listens to a proper case put from any part of the Chamber. Now is his chance to show just how responsive and receptive he is by taking on board arguments that he has acknowledged to have been well made.
	I know that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) wants to speak. I look forward—I almost said "for once", but that would have been uncharitable—to his speech, because I know he has many good and useful points to make. Let me end on this note. As I said, the Minister accused me of cynicism; but he knows that romantics like me are immune to cynicism. This is not a matter of cynicism. It is a matter of good government, good planning and good leadership. I hope that what the Minister does today and hereafter will show all three.
	I recommend to my colleagues that in this instance we support the Lords. We will be voting "No", not because we do not think that there is good will, but because we feel that the time has come to stand our ground on these important matters in defence of the common people of our country. I hope that, ultimately, the Minister will reach the same conclusion.

Matthew Green: I, too, congratulate the Minister on his approach, not just in the past week but since he took charge of the Bill. We could say that considerable concessions have been made; we could say, if we were being charitable, that people of like mind have reached agreement. There has been movement on the Government's part, and also on the Opposition's part, since we embarked on the Bill nearly 18 months ago. Some of us have served all 18 months, and it seems a very long time.
	The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and I agree on the fact that this is about creating a good planning system. As the Minister will know, a good planning system carries the confidence of the people who use it, and people are most confident when a system is democratic. The Minister cannot suggest in any circumstances that the Government's proposals or the amendment make this system democratic.
	Rather than going over ground that we have been over many times, I want to comment on the Government's proposed amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 1B. I am afraid that, for once, the Minister has produced a smokescreen. The Bill proposes that 30 per cent. of members of the regional planning body should come from the business sectors rather than the councils. It is now being suggested that 60 per cent. should come from the councils, so there is presumably 10 per cent. of flexibility. That will mean that many councils that are losing powers—the primary tier, the county councils, the metropolitans and the unitaries—will not be represented. Indeed, the Minister's amendment includes district councils, which are not losing powers. It is an odd amendment, which for once lacks coherence and intellectual clarity.
	The Minister knows that there is potential for common ground, but his amendment is not that common ground. I do not think that he will be surprised to hear me say that. He will, I believe, struggle to justify the continued removal of powers from directly elected councils, and the granting of those powers to, at best, a partly indirectly elected regional planning body, which will have a considerable influence on what happens. Democracy is not, perhaps, always the quickest form of government, but it is the best that we have, and I am surprised that the Minister is prepared to overlook democracy in the name of expediency, which is exactly what is being proposed.
	There is some room for common ground, and the Minister knows that a sensible compromise could be reached. I welcome the fact that he is prepared to reconsider the other part of this group of Lords amendments, which affects the sub-regional plans, and that again shows the spirit that has been evident from him so far. If he will show the same sort of flexibility on the Lords reason, then we are very close to considerable agreement on the Bill. However, the Minister will have to move further than the amendment that the Government have tabled. That does not move; it just states what exists on the ground in regional planning bodies at the moment, and does not in any way increase their democratic involvement.
	I hope that the Minister thinks again. We, too, will vote against the Government's insistence on disagreement and their amendment in lieu. I hope that he will take the opportunity before this matter returns to the Lords again to reflect on the position that has been outlined, and see whether a more sensible compromise can be reached.

Keith Hill: I feel that I need to respond briefly to the points that have been made. I first turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who dwelt on democratic accountability. I am pretty certain that I am accurate in saying that he claimed that our proposals would mean a transfer of powers to bodies with no elected members. For reasons that I shall demonstrate, there is no transfer to the regional bodies in the proposals, because the powers are already there. I contend that we are introducing a process that is more transparent and has more community involvement. The regional spatial strategy will be tested in public by examination in public—again, evidence of the extent to which we are introducing a process that is more transparent and, I assert, more democratic than that which prevails at present.
	I remind the hon. Gentleman that the existing bodies have elected members. They all have a majority of elected members. Indeed, on six of the eight regional chambers that act as regional planning bodies, the Conservative party has the largest number of members. They are hardly institutions immune to the expression of representative opinion at local level, opinion that might be not entirely sympathetic with Government views on regional development.

Matthew Green: Surely even the Minister will admit that that is a somewhat cheap jibe at the Conservatives—I say that as a Liberal Democrat—for the simple reason that we are talking about the principle of whether something is democratic, not about which party currently has the largest number of councillors on an indirectly elected body. Those members are elected to their council, but then appointed to a regional planning body, not necessarily from all the councils in turn. The Minister should admit that he is not being fair in his reflection.

Keith Hill: My comment was not intended as a jibe, and was more of a reminder of the opportunities that exist. I accept that there would be an even more compelling case if there were to be elected regional assemblies, and I certainly welcome the Conservative party's new-found enthusiasm in the amendments for elected regional assemblies. They will be aware that elected regional assemblies are not yet proposed for the entirety of England. Although we anticipate the success of the referendums for regional assemblies in the northern parts of the country, we recognise that there might be some slight delay in their introduction elsewhere, and it is in the regions without elected assemblies that it would be nonsense to scrap the regional planning function that was the child of Conservative Government policy making way back in 1990.
	I turn to the charge of loss of democracy in the new system made by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). What really matters to people is that they can have their say, and have their views listened to in the planning process. He will know that central to our reforms at regional and local level is greater community involvement, and he has welcomed that on many occasions. Our amendment would require the regional planning body, as he knows, to prepare, publish and comply with a statement of its policies for involving interested parties in preparing draft revisions of the regional spatial strategy. Draft regulations require the regional planning bodies to consult a wide range of bodies while the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy is being prepared and after it has been published.

Matthew Green: The logic of what the Minister has just said is that an autocratic regime that consults its citizens is better than a democratic one, and that consultation is a substitute for democracy. I am sure that he did not mean to say that to the House.

Keith Hill: I certainly did not mean to say that, and indeed I did not. Of course consultation is no substitute for democracy. However, greater consultation and greater community involvement, within the framework of a democratically accountable process—which is exactly what our planning reform agenda and our regional spatial strategy proposals are all about—certainly strengthens democratic and popular involvement in the process. That is not there at present, but will be introduced by these measures.
	Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that clause 7 provides for independent public examination of the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy, during which people will be invited to speak. That will take place in all but exceptional circumstances. I have mentioned draft planning policy statement 11, which sets out ways in which the regional planning body can and should involve stakeholders and the wider community on an ongoing basis, as initial ideas and options are turned into firm proposals.
	We are not squeezing democracy out of the system. Under the Bill's provisions, as now, it will be for the regional planning body to propose the number of new dwellings that should be provided in its region. We are simply changing the basis on which those figures can be allocated down to the next level, and instead of that being determined by county boundaries, regional planning bodies will be able to make allocations on a sub-regional basis, taking account of housing market needs.
	We are at the end of an exceptionally long process with the Bill, which was first introduced to the House in December 2002, and that process has been a great pleasure. The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), is to pick up the reins and steer this great carriage forward. I regret the fact that the Opposition parties continue to oppose these measures, but I hope that the winning post is now in sight, and that, with a further burst, the endgame can be secured.

Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in the said amendment.
	The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 140.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.
	Lords Reason: No. 3B
	The Lords insist on their Amendment 3 to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following Reason—
	Because regional spatial strategies should be based on the views of local communities
	Motion made, and Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Keith Hill.]
	The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 141.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	It being more than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [19 April].
	Lords amendment No. 41B agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for insisting on disagreeing to their amendment No. 3; Paul Clark, Matthew Green, Mr. John Hayes, Keith Hill and Linda Gilroy to be members of the Committee; Keith Hill to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Paul Clark.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[7th Allotted Day—Second Part]

Animal and Plant Diseases

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Theresa May: I beg to move,
	That this House recognises the potential risk posed to British agriculture and to the environment of the UK by the importation of animal and plant diseases; acknowledges the crucial importance of preventing diseases from entering the country; notes with concern the increase in the number of diseases in Britain emanating from abroad and the spread of virulent epidemics across the world; recognises the implications for biosecurity of the enlargement of the European Union; condemns the Government for failing to learn the lessons from the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease; regrets the failure of the Government to address these problems and to instil confidence in the farming community; and calls on the Government to take urgent action to put in place the stringent measures necessary to prevent animal and plant disease from entering the UK.
	This morning I received a letter from the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environment Quality explaining that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was not available to respond to this debate because she was attending a meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development in the United States. He also told me that the Minister of State was at the same conference—two Ministers and staff in America at taxpayers' expense—and that he himself would be unable to respond to the debate because he was speaking at a rural affairs conference at the invitation of the Irish Government.
	The Government have had a week's notice of this debate. It is perhaps understandable for one Minister to be unavailable, but for three Ministers to fail to respond to a debate on a subject that threatens the livelihood of British farmers is not only to treat the House with contempt, but sends a clear message to farmers that the Government are not interested in them or their future. Once again, the Government are letting British farmers down. I look forward to hearing the contribution of the Under-Secretary. I doubt whether the House will want to hear from him twice in the same debate, but we will see how it unfolds.
	The year 2001 was possibly the blackest period in modern history for British agriculture. Our green and pleasant land became the scene of death and destruction. Our television screens were filled with images of funeral pyres, rotting carcases and smoke-filled air. The pain and suffering caused to Britain's rural communities was etched on the faces of those farmers who saw their lifetime's work destroyed by a contiguous cull on a massive scale. As a result of foot and mouth disease, 10 million animals were slaughtered, our countryside put up closed signs and some were forced not just to the point of bankruptcy but of suicide. For our farmers, it seemed like the end of the world as they knew it: for many, it was.
	The subsequent report from the National Audit Office said that the outbreak cost Britain £8 billion—a £3 billion cost to the public sector and hence the taxpayer, and more than a £5 billion cost to the private sector. The Institute of Directors put the cost higher at £20 billion. We all understand that outbreaks of diseases such as foot and mouth affect not just our farmers, but the wider economy, the service industry and tourism. We owe it to all of them to ensure that it can never happen again. It is our duty, and the duty of any Government, to ensure that it can never happen again. Yet my colleagues and I have yet to meet a farmer who believes that we are better prepared for a future outbreak. The fact remains that the Government have lost the confidence of our farming industry in respect of their ability to prevent disease from entering Britain.

Andrew George: What did the farming community tell the hon. Lady about the £4 billion loss and the destruction of the livestock sector caused by the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy?

Theresa May: There is no doubt that British farming has suffered a number of difficult periods in recent years. That is why it is all the more important that the Government put in place the action necessary to ensure that we never see such devastation happening again.
	The farming community's lack of confidence in the Government is in no small part due to their decision to deny a full and independent public inquiry into foot and mouth. Of course, we have seen a number of commissions and reports into the outbreak, but Government have steadfastly refused to conduct a transparent inquiry into the events and circumstances leading up to and during the course of the outbreak. The only public inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak was the result of pressure by Conservative Members of the European Parliament and was opposed tooth and nail by Labour MEPs.

Eric Martlew: Is the hon. Lady aware that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), carried out an investigation into foot and mouth disease in this country?

Theresa May: I am grateful for that intervention, but I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman is talking about the full and independent public inquiry that the British farming industry wants the Government to call in order to get answers about why the outbreak happened.
	Since it became public knowledge that we were holding this debate, my staff have fielded a stream of telephone calls, e-mails and messages from people throughout the country. Those people feel strongly about the issue: each has something to say, and is able to uncover another piece of the jigsaw in respect of what happened in the outbreak. That shows that the Government, far from reassuring people and answering their questions and concerns, have simply chosen to ignore them. However, those questions and concerns will not go away.
	We have had the inquiry into lessons learned headed by Dr. Anderson, but have we really learned any lessons? Following the 1967 outbreak, we knew not only how the disease came into the country, but the very yard where the outbreak happened. However, despite all the improvements in science and forensics, and the leaps forward in DNA testing, we still do not know how the virus responsible for the 2001 outbreak came into the country, or why. The public's obvious concerns will not be allayed by the recent revelations concerning Jim Dring, the vet responsible for inspecting the premises in Heddon-on-the-Wall where the outbreak is suspected to have started.
	Mr. Dring is an honourable and conscientious man. He concluded that the foot and mouth crisis would never have happened if his inspection of Bobby Waugh's Northumberland pig farm in the weeks leading up to the outbreak had been more rigorous. However, he said that he had been hamstrung by a lack of veterinary resources.

Ben Bradshaw: Oh no he did not.

Theresa May: The Minister, from a sedentary position, says that Mr. Dring did not say that. However, in his report, Mr. Dring said, in relation to his inspection to review the Waughs' article 26 licence:
	"Had this inspection been more rigorous than it was, had the licence not been renewed, or renewed only subject to radical revision of the Waughs' patently deficient feeding technique, then this awful 2001 FMD epidemic would never have come about."

Angela Browning: My hon. Friend will recall that we discussed the Dring report in Westminster Hall on 16 March. I raised with the Minister the fact that that report was not available in full at the time of the Anderson inquiry. He declined to comment on that, but merely said that he would put the papers in the Library. Does my hon. Friend agree that we deserve an answer as to why the Government withheld that information from the Anderson inquiry?

Theresa May: I certainly echo the comments made by my hon. Friend. The report is a very important part of the evidence as to what happened during the foot and mouth outbreak. It is unfortunate that the Minister has tried to deny, from a sedentary position, what the Dring report contained.
	The matter is about more than one man's mistake. It is thanks to Mr. Dring's courage and honesty that we have this vital piece of evidence. It was withheld from the Anderson inquiry, to which it should have been available. I echo the challenge to the Minister to explain why the information was not made available.
	The House may not know that, when it became clear that the report existed, the Government claimed that it was an aide memoire—even though it is 26 pages long, and consists of some 11,700 words. It is an important piece of evidence that should have been available to the Anderson inquiry.
	On 24 March, Lord Whitty told the other place that
	"it is clear from the cover note and from what Mr. Dring has said that he wanted his personal statement to go to the inquiry in some form. The legal advice was that it could be prejudicial to the trial of what almost certainly was the starting point of foot and mouth and therefore to any judgment that that court made. In a sense, that was understandable legal advice."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 701.]
	However, to say that releasing the Dring report could have prejudiced the trial does not stand up to scrutiny. Mr. Waugh's trial was over before the Anderson inquiry reported. Moreover, publication of the report could have been put back until the risk of prejudice had passed.
	There is no question that anyone wants to blame Mr. Dring. We want a definitive answer as to how the 2001 FMD epidemic started, and to ensure that its lessons are fully learned. One of the issues raised in Jim Dring's report is that the state veterinary service was under pressure because of lack of resources.
	It is understandable that a man under pressure might make a mistake: what is not understandable is how the Government could allow the pressures to get to that point, knowing the risks that that entailed. What cannot be forgiven is that the Government tried to hide the evidence and to keep it from people. How can members of the farming community have confidence that the Government have given them the truth, when the necessary information comes, not from Ministers or the Department, but from the pages of the farming press?
	It is understandable that farmers might ask why, if one damning piece of evidence can be withheld, should not other evidence also be hidden in Ministry filing cabinets.

David Drew: I am sure that the hon. Lady has read the Select Committee report on the state of the veterinary service, which does go along with some of her points. We may never know what caused foot and mouth in this country, but we certainly know that the transmission mechanism was down to the fact that we have a process based on production subsidies, which means that animals are pushed around the country to earn a few pence. The Government have had to learn a lesson from that, and we are, thankfully, moving away from production subsidies. When the Conservatives were in power, what did they do to deal with that?

David Maclean: Markets are not the problem.

Eric Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right for the Opposition Chief Whip to make comments from a sedentary position?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Comments from a sedentary position are never welcome in any debate at any time.

Theresa May: What we certainly know is that the Government have not put in place the inquiry that is necessary to make sure that we get answers on why the outbreak occurred and the disease came into the country. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) implied that we would never be able to get to that answer. We did in 1967, when the inquiry not only got answers but set out lessons to be learned.
	We now know, of course, that an internal DEFRA investigation has cleared Ministers and officials of any wrongdoing or attempt to mislead. I might add that the existence of that internal investigation was revealed only after it had concluded that everything was above board and squeaky clean. That will give no reassurance to the many farmers who want to get to the truth. It is, after all, only a few weeks since another internal investigation cleared another Minister of wrongdoing, only for her to be forced to resign after fresh evidence came to light a few days later.
	I raised the possibility earlier that more pieces of evidence like Jim Dring's report might be sitting in Ministry filing cabinets. I would be willing to give way now to the Minister if he wanted to rise to guarantee to the House that no other information has been withheld and that Dr. Anderson received each and every piece of relevant information relating to the outbreak. I should be happy to give way if the Minister wished to do that, but I am afraid that the fact that he is not—[Interruption.] Oh, he is.

Ben Bradshaw: I have asked that question of officials and have been assured that that is the case.

Theresa May: Well, we have had a lot of Ministers standing up to talk about what officials have or have not done. It is about time Ministers took responsibility for what happens in their Departments.

Geraint Davies: rose—

Jackie Lawrence: rose—

Theresa May: I shall not give way because I want to make progress. [Interruption.] No. I shall make some progress.
	The only way to restore our farmers' confidence in the process is to have a full public inquiry. I call again on the Government to do just that. We need plain and honest answers to simple questions.
	We must all realise that the threat of another outbreak of foot and mouth or other equally virulent diseases is ever increasing. The increase in air travel and hence in the flow of people and goods makes the transmission of hazardous products all the more likely. In recent times, we have suffered swine fever and foot and mouth disease. Over the past six months, we have seen a growing number of diseases crossing our shores. In the south-west, we have had the first outbreak of brucellosis in England in 10 years. The previous case in the United Kingdom was an outbreak in Scotland, caused by infected cattle from France. Yet, to date, we have no idea where the most recent outbreak came from. One thing is sure, however: this and other diseases are not native to Britain; they are foreign diseases that enter our country from overseas.
	We must consider not just animal diseases. In recent months, we have had outbreaks of brown rot and ring rot, the most contagious disease to affect potatoes, which recently caused devastation when it took hold in the United States of America.

Jackie Lawrence: The hon. Lady may or may not be aware that the potato ring rot outbreak in Wales was contained entirely efficiently and did not spread to other farms. Would she like to congratulate the Welsh Assembly Government and the Westminster Government on their efforts to ensure that it did not spread?

Theresa May: It is interesting that when there is a problem it is the officials, not the Minister, who take the blame, yet when there are congratulations to be made it is the politicians, not the officials, who are congratulated. I am happy to say "Well done" to those on the ground who were responsible for containing that disease, but the fact that it arrived in this country and that other diseases are being found is a cause for concern and we should look into why that his happening.
	Another example of a plant disease is sudden oak death syndrome or phytophthora ramorum, as it is known. [Laughter.] I may not have pronounced that right and I hesitate to do so again. It may sound more like a spell from a Harry Potter book, but it is a serious disease that has taken hold in some parts of the country. It threatens our oak and beech tree populations.

David Heath: It has been endemic in rhododendrons for years.

Theresa May: Yes, indeed, it starts from rhododendrons but it then passes to oak and other trees. There is evidence of that in certain parts. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take part in the debate or to intervene, I should be grateful if he would rise in the usual way. Interventions from a sedentary position are extremely disruptive.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman's sedentary intervention was wrong as well as unhelpful.
	The important point raised by diseases such as sudden oak death syndrome, which has caused the destruction of rhododendron plants of up to 150 years old, is that people feel free to bring back plants from abroad. They do not realise the dangers of that to species in the United Kingdom. It is time that people were made more aware of the risks of importing plants. We must bear in mind the fact that with the enlargement of the EU on Saturday our borders will be wider and more difficult to control.
	We expect our farmers to be vigilant, to look out for signs of disease and to put in place necessary biosecurity measures, but we must also play our part. It is all very well to ask farmers to improve biosecurity, but the single most effective way of preventing disease from spreading across our country is by preventing it from entering the country in the first place. We need to put in place stricter measures, such as are seen in other countries. What a difference there is between our lack of import controls, and, for example, the strict import controls seen in the United States, Australia and New Zealand. I heard recently of a tourist from Somerset who was surprised on going to Australia to be fined £1,500 after being arrested at Perth airport for importing an apple, a pear and five tangerines. By comparison we are lax on import controls.

Geraint Davies: How is it that today the hon. Lady is calling for more EU regulations to bring us into line with the United States and more investment in veterinary services and protective mechanisms of security when only yesterday the Leader of the Opposition said that he would reduce EU regulations by a third and make reductions? They are completely contradictory. How much would all this cost?

Theresa May: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene in the debate, he should listen to it before he asks his question.
	I welcome the Government's new campaign against meat smugglers. Posters and leaflets are being circulated at air and ferry ports to make travellers aware of the potentially devastating consequences of illegally imported products, but leaflet campaigns are superficial. The subject should not take the Government by surprise. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), is not present because I should like to pay tribute to him for his work on raising the issue of bush meat imports. He has raised this issue on a number of occasions. We should all recognise that illegal meat imports pose a major threat to the health and biosecurity of the nation.
	We are not talking about a ham sandwich brought in by an unsuspecting tourist in their handbag or a half-eaten foreign delicacy. The trade in illegal meat is a multi-million pound a year criminal trade being run in an organised, systematic manner. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the views of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency and the independent consultants SafetyCraft, which conducted research for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which estimated that an average of 7,500 tonnes of illegal meat products are imported into the UK every year, a figure greater than the combined legal imports of beef into the UK from France, Uruguay and Argentina. That may amaze some hon. Members, but they should not be shocked, because the research also said that the figure could be as high as 17,500 tonnes a year. It is reported that baggage handlers at Heathrow airport have repeatedly raised concerns over personal luggage arriving on flights from Africa that are full of bush meat. Luggage has been found covered in maggots and some has left a trail of blood in the arrival halls. Often, the meat is detected by nothing more than its pungent smell.

David Heath: The hon. Lady is wrong about rhododenrons, but she is right about this issue. There is a laxness about our border controls across the spectrum. It would be far better to have a single uniform border force that could cope with Customs and Excise functions, immigration functions and policing functions, as well as the intelligence work that accompanies those functions. It could provide proper interdiction of the import of illegal meats at all of our ports of entry, not just those where there happens to be a customs officer on duty.

Theresa May: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a real need for us to focus on the issue and to consider improving our import controls. However, I am not convinced that that would best be done by a single agency that would bring people together in the way that he suggests, because of the specialisms needed to make assessments across the spectrum of issues. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the need to take the issue seriously, but I am sad to say that the Government do not appear to do so.
	I recommend that the Minister look at the website of the Bushmeat campaign or speaks to Mr Clive Lawrence, formerly of Heathrow-based Ciel Logistics. It says on the website that Mr Lawrence has witnessed seizures of between 400 and 500 kg of illegal bush meat from just two passengers entering the country from Africa.
	According to Department for Transport statistics, 64 million passengers landed at or departed from Heathrow airport in 2000 alone. Of course approximately half of those are leaving the country, rather than coming in, but nevertheless, they are massive numbers. However, according to the Customs and Excise annual report for 2002–03, 10,528 people coming in to the UK in total were searched, for all forms of smuggling. Illegal meat imports can be anything from beef, pork and chicken to exotic products such as monkey, antelope, grasscutters—which I am reliably informed are giant rats—porcupines and bush rats. Very real concerns have been raised that bush meat could potentially be infected not just with animal diseases such as foot and mouth and swine fever, but also with diseases such as Ebola and monkey pox which could have a devastating impact on human health in this country.
	We should also not underestimate the dangers posed by avian flu, a highly contagious disease in poultry that has caused devastation in the far east. In the last few months, tens of millions of chickens and ducks have been slaughtered across Asia. Sadly, bird flu has also killed 22 people in Vietnam and Thailand. This is a disease threat that must not be underestimated. Nor is it a disease restricted to foreign or distant lands. Last year, 10 million chickens were culled in the Netherlands in an effort to stop the spread of an outbreak of the disease, at a cost to the Dutch industry of an estimated €200 million. It is a disease that has already struck in mainland Europe. We do not have any guarantees that it will not enter the British isles, and the implications could be far worse than foot and mouth disease. Only last week, Dr. John McCauley, of the Institute for Animal Health, said that the virus could be 20 times worse than the 1918 flu pandemic. He said that there was also a realistic chance of the current avian flu virus evolving to threaten people directly. It is important that we discuss such issues in a calm and considered manner. The last thing our farming industry needs is another food scare.
	Although we must not cause a public health or food scare, we must also be sure not to take this issue lightly. As Gareth Vaughan, president of the Farmers Union of Wales, said only last month:
	"Foot and mouth devastated the British countryside. We do not want to see a repeat of those dreadful scenes because of poor important controls allowing that or some other terrible disease back into the country."
	That is why I say that it is an issue that the Government should take seriously.

Jackie Lawrence: The figures that I have show that the Government spend £22 million a year on the control and diagnosis of animal diseases and import measures. They also spend £15 million a year on research into bovine TB in badgers, making a total of £37 million on just those two points. Should the Tories get into power, will the hon. Lady give a commitment that they will not cut that expenditure in any way?

Theresa May: If the hon. Lady is a little patient, I shall come on to the Government's spending figures shortly.
	The trade in illegal meat not only threatens the risk of further disease, but poses a serious threat to highly endangered wildlife in Africa and across the globe. The world's leading scientists have stated that species such as gorillas will face extinction within a generation unless immediate international action is taken. The necessity to deal with this problem is not only economic; it is environmentally and ecologically right to put an end to this illegal trade. However, it is a lucrative and an organised trade, worth up to an estimated £1 billion per year, and it is easy to see why. A grasscutter rat can be bought in an African bush meat market for a few pounds but, in the UK, each carcass can command a price well in excess of £100.
	The Veterinary Laboratories Agency calculates that roughly 85 per cent. of the bush meat entering the country illegally comes in via personal luggage, that 11 per cent. is smuggled in ship containers, that 3 per cent. comes in via transit sheds and that the remainder arrives by post and courier. Eastern Europe, west Africa, southern Africa, eastern Asia and the near and middle east account for 83 per cent. of the total flow of illegal meat into this country. Once here, it is estimated that 55 per cent. is intended for commercial use. The majority is therefore not for the personal consumption of those bringing it in, but is sold on at vast profit.
	The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) referred to the figures that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is spending. It has invested £25 million in a three-year action plan to tackle the illegal trade, and that is welcome news. The initiative includes a new frontier enforcement strategy involving Customs and Excise, four new national strike teams of Customs officers to detect meat and animal products, continuing intelligence gathering and publicity drives and—wait for it—increasing the number of sniffer dogs from two to six. There will be six sniffer dogs when the UK has 110 ports of entry. As we have heard, Heathrow alone deals with more than 64 million passengers a year, and the Minister is offering us six sniffer dogs to deal with the problem.
	I do not believe that the Government have taken the threat seriously enough. We have seen a 10 per cent. nationwide reduction in front-line Customs staff, rising to 40 per cent. in some parts of the country such as Wales. That means that ports of entry are often left unmanned. Strike teams and improved intelligence gathering have replaced, rather than supplemented, the existing service.
	It may be worth while to compare the figures that the Government are spending with the sums spent in other parts of the world. Some £25 million is being spent over three years to address illegal meat imports in the UK, but Australia is spending £246 million in one year alone—this year—to counter threats from exotic pests and diseases. In addition, the Australia Quarantine and Inspection Service receives £116 million. Is it any wonder that our farming community has no confidence in the Government's commitment to disease prevention?

Russell Brown: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Theresa May: I shall not give way again.
	The lack of resources is evident in one further area—prosecution rates. Only two prosecutions have been brought against people caught bringing illegal meat, including bush meat, into the UK since Customs and Excise assumed responsibility for the task a year ago. An estimated 7,500 tonnes of illegal meat is entering our country, yet there have been only two prosecutions in 12 months. Even when there are prosecutions, the courts are so lenient that prosecution acts as little deterrent. The first case involved a 48-year-old woman who was charged with illegally importing 186 lb—more than 13 stone—of fish, goat meat and snails from the Gambia through Gatwick. She was fined £150 with £140 costs at Mid-Sussex magistrates court. The second case was that of an American man who was fined £300 with £140 costs. What sort of message does the Minister think that sends out to the organised gangs involved in commercial smuggling?
	I began the debate by referring to the scenes of devastation in our countryside in 2001. That was not just about pictures on the television screen. That devastation was felt by many people in their lives, as farmers watched years of painstaking work being destroyed before their eyes and many farmers and others saw their livelihoods vanish. We all have a duty to make sure that that cannot happen again.
	Sadly, the Government are failing in that duty. Their failure to deal with illegal meat imports and their lack of import controls are putting British farming and potentially the health of the nation at risk. It is time the Government listened to farmers and others, including those on their own Back Benches who have been highlighting the risk. It is time the Government took the risk and the issue seriously. Their failure to act is letting all of us down.

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"commends the action taken by this Government to eradicate exotic plant and animal disease when it occurs, and to control endemic disease; congratulates the Government on its actions that have succeeded in reducing the number of BSE clinical cases to just 184 last year; further congratulates the Government on eradicating a major outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in seven months and on implementing the recommendations of the Lessons Learned and Royal Society Inquiries so that Government is better prepared to tackle a future outbreak of a major livestock disease; welcomes the significant progress made to tackle illegal imports both by increasing enforcement activity at the border and by increasing public awareness; applauds the Government on its action taken against other animal and plant diseases, notably Salmonella Java and potato ring rot; and notes the Government's continuing commitment to prevent serious animal and plant disease."
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for initiating the debate. I am sorry that she felt it necessary to take a cheap swipe at my ministerial colleagues who cannot be present today. As the Minister responsible for animal health, I am pleased that I can be here. It gives me the opportunity to outline some of the measures that the Government have taken to protect and improve our animal and plant health record.
	When Labour came to power, there were out-of-date and insufficient plans for tackling major outbreaks of exotic diseases, yet the Government managed to control and eradicate in only seven months the largest outbreak of foot and mouth disease ever, and contrary to the wording in the Opposition motion, we have learned the lessons from that outbreak. We have taken new legislation through Parliament to ensure that we have better powers to tackle not just foot and mouth, but other exotic diseases in future. We have put in place new measures to protect against the import and spread of disease, and we have consulted on and published detailed contingency plans for tackling those diseases in the event of an outbreak.
	We have also set about addressing what the overall approach to animal health and welfare should be, a subject on which the hon. Lady had nothing to say. The Policy Commission on the Future of Food and Farming, known as the Curry report, was highly critical back in 2002 of Britain's animal health record under the previous Conservative Government. The present Government are committed to restoring our national reputation and we will do so by working with all interested parties. It is this approach that underpins the current development of our animal health and welfare strategy.
	That will set out the roles of Government and others in protecting ourselves against the incursion or spread of animal disease. There will be incentives to good practice and a greater sharing of responsibilities and burdens between taxpayer, consumer and the agriculture industry. A key strategic aim will be to ensure that animal owners adopt a far more proactive approach to preventing disease and welfare problems and address practices that increase the likelihood of disease.
	There are also some fundamental challenges for the veterinary profession. The recent Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on vets and veterinary services raises issues about the extent to which the veterinary profession will be able to deliver the aims of that strategy. We are working closely with the entire profession and with livestock farmers, and we will respond to the Committee before the summer recess.

Angela Browning: Does the Minister share my concern that while we rightly allow veterinarians from within the EU, which is a single market, to come and practise in this country, it is clear that the amount of work they do on farm animal husbandry during their training is miniscule compared with the amount involved in veterinary training in this country? Does that cause him concern?

Ben Bradshaw: No, it does not. It would be wrong of the hon. Lady to decry the contribution made in this country by vets from other EU countries. Their contribution has been massively important, not least in the foot and mouth outbreak and since. They have a contribution to make and they would not be allowed to work in this field if they did not have the relevant qualifications. Our veterinary student numbers are at record levels, so I do not share the concern that she expresses.

Angela Browning: Will the Minister give way?

Ben Bradshaw: No; I should like to make some progress.
	The Government also accept that we have a key role to play in protecting public health, in protecting and promoting animal health and welfare, in helping to control or eradicate disease and in securing opportunities for international trade. We must recognise that the UK benefits enormously from that trade. In the last year for which we have figures, 2003, our livestock exports were worth £1,667 million to this country. Our export of crops was worth £825 million and exports of pig and pigmeat products alone amounted to some £107 million.
	Imports are also important, because they enable us to produce a wide range of value-added products that we could not produce if we had to rely on UK materials. This is good for jobs and good for the UK economy generally. The hon. Member for Maidenhead was right to say that controls on imports from third countries are a major weapon in the fight against the introduction of disease via imported animals, animal products or plants. The vast majority of import controls are part of EU law. Where there are gaps, we apply domestic measures on the basis of a risk assessment.
	Live animals and animal products may be imported only from third countries approved by the European Commission, and only from approved establishments in those countries. They must have an official veterinary certificate guaranteeing their health status and may enter the EU only via an approved border inspection post at the port or airport of entry. There, comprehensive veterinary checks are carried out to ensure that all the import conditions specified in Community law are met. Only then will they be released for import.
	Imports from other EU member states will have been subject to controls before they were exported, to ensure that they meet Community rules. Where there is an outbreak of certain diseases in a member state, exports are not permitted.

David Kidney: My hon. Friend has just explained the legal and commercial route for livestock and foodstuffs through border import posts. As I see it, that system has worked robustly and well for a long time, but the fears articulated in the debate seemed to overlook that system completely. Does he think that paying more attention to the successes would be very helpful in reassuring people when we start to clamp down on the areas that need more attention?

Ben Bradshaw: It is important that we draw attention to our successes, which is partly what I am trying to do, but there are also genuine concerns about the other side of these matters, including the illegal smuggling mentioned by the hon. Member for Maidenhead, to which I shall refer in a moment.
	There are similar import restrictions in relation to plant health. Where there is a plant health risk, all plants and some plant products must have an official phytosanitary certificate guaranteeing their health status, and some are prohibited altogether. All consignments are liable to inspection on arrival either at the port of entry or at an inland inspection point, whether or not a certificate is required. UK checks are targeted at trades and consignments deemed to represent the highest risk. For intra-Community movements, the onus is again on control in the member state of origin, through a system of plant passporting backed up by a comprehensive system of monitoring and trace-back arrangements in the event of a problem being identified.
	Following the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001, the Government have made significant strides to improve our ability to detect and prevent illegal imports of animal products from third countries. We have provided new money amounting to £25 million over three years to enhance controls. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise took over responsibility for border controls targeted against smuggled imports in 2003. A range of new measures have been introduced, including additional staff, better intelligence gathering behind the scenes and teams of detector dogs, of which there will shortly be 10. There has also been a significant increase in publicity material, and new posters and leaflets are now available to increase public awareness.

Alan Reid: In a written answer on 23 February, the Economic Secretary referred to last year's trials of X-ray technology, which has not been put into practice. Will the Minister tell us the result of the trials and whether X-ray technology will be used?

Ben Bradshaw: I will write to the hon. Gentleman on his specific question about X-ray technology. As a result of the measures that are in place, seizures of illegally imported meat have increased massively, and I shall give him some figures later in my speech.

George Osborne: The Minister is talking about measures that the Government have taken. Does he agree with the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who has great independence of mind, that
	"There will be an epidemic and some form of transmission into the human population. It is a matter of mathematics. No one can say when it is going to happen, but it will happen"?
	What has he got to say about those comments from a fellow Minister about the Government's regime?

Ben Bradshaw: I hesitate to comment on quotes provided by Opposition Members that I have not read before, which may be out of context, but I will check up on that point. Yes, the threats are serious. Extra challenges arise as trade, from which we all benefit, increases, but I argue that the Government are meeting those challenges. The hon. Gentleman is right that, not least in the hands of terrorist organisations, zoonotic diseases could be a serious threat not only to the UK but to countries throughout the world, which is why we are implementing our measures.
	In my reply to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), I said that seizures have risen significantly. There were 2,053 seizures in 2001–02, and that figure increased almost fourfold to 7,819 in 2002–03. The latest indications are that that upward trend has continued, and the figures for 2003–04 will be published in June in our annual review of controls on imports of animal products.
	I have indicated that we can never achieve 100 per cent. protection against disease entering the country. One factor that can reduce or increase the spread of livestock disease is the quality of biosecurity within the UK. Biosecurity includes the extent to which livestock are moved around the country, and standards in markets, which is contrary to the contribution from the shadow Chief Whip, who indicated that livestock markets play no role and that biosecurity at livestock markets is not important. A high level of biosecurity is vital in helping to prevent the spread of disease.
	Back in 2001, livestock movements in this country were virtually unrestricted except for pigs, but foot and mouth taught us that we could not continue like that. Farmers and others in agriculture obviously want to trade when and where economic conditions encourage it, but equally, the Government have a responsibility for the protection not only of the public interest but of animal health, and we have tried to find the appropriate balance between those two potentially conflicting points of view.
	Initially, we extended to all species the 20-day standstill for pigs, but we also commissioned a cost-benefit analysis of various movement standstill regimes. We concluded that the 20-day standstill should remain for pigs, but for other species we should not revert to the pre-2001 laissez-faire approach but should instead introduce a six-day standstill, which we introduced in August 2003, with the involvement and overwhelming support of stakeholders in the livestock industry.
	We have made it clear that if disease threatens, we will revert to a 20-day standstill, and that if disease returns, a complete movement ban will be imposed initially. The same approach has been taken to developing controls in markets and elsewhere. Biosecurity proved paramount in the eradication of foot and mouth disease in 2001. We have learned that the livestock industry must observe higher standards than in the past in order to reduce the risk of livestock disease spreading, and that we must improve detection of those who fail to comply.
	Markets and livestock shows now have to be licensed to make sure they maintain biosecurity, as the mixing of a large number of animals from different origins could allow disease to spread very quickly. The cleansing and disinfection of livestock vehicles is also key to preventing the spread of disease. Strict rules were in place for some time, but we learned from the foot and mouth disease outbreak and improved the rules so that they can be better enforced.
	With regard to the measures that are being put in place to deal with any future outbreaks of exotic animal disease, contingency plans that fit within the framework of EU-approved contingency plans have been and continue to be developed. The latest version of DEFRA's foot and mouth disease contingency plan, which provides the structures, roles and responsibilities to ensure a robust framework for the response to a future exotic animal disease, was laid before Parliament at the end of March 2004.
	Let me comment on what the hon. Member for Maidenhead and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said about the foot and mouth outbreak and the role of the state vet, Mr. Jim Dring. I accept, as do my ministerial colleagues, that it was a mistake not to pass Jim Dring's testimony—or whatever one wants to call it—on to the Anderson inquiry. We have also made it clear that, as the hon. Member for Maidenhead said, the decision was made on understandable legal advice about the possibility that it might prejudice the forthcoming trial of the Waughs. As soon as Jim Dring's testimony was drawn to my attention, I asked for it to be published and placed not only in the Library but on DEFRA's website.
	I am afraid that the hon. Member for Maidenhead did what some in the media have done in quoting selectively and tendentiously from Jim Dring's very long testimony, to suggest that during the inspections immediately prior to the foot and mouth outbreak he complained about a lack of resources. He did not. The only reference that he made to the service being stretched was in connection with an earlier outbreak during the previous year. It is best to read Mr. Dring's report in full. He has said that there was no knowledge that he possessed at the time that was not passed on to the Anderson inquiry. Professor Anderson, whom I asked to read Jim Dring's report in full, has also said that nothing contained in it would have made any difference to his recommendations.
	I have to tell the House that Mr. Dring is furious about the misrepresentations made in some media reports, which I am afraid were repeated by the hon. Member for Maidenhead and which seem to try to divert blame for the foot and mouth outbreak from those who were responsible on to a conscientious and hard-working vet.

Andrew George: In questioning this matter there is no attempt, certainly on my part, to put the blame on Mr. Dring. I raised the issue in the House on 11 March and wrote to the Secretary of State, who originally said that the Dring report consisted merely of "musings". When the report came out, the Minister failed to publish the covering note making it clear that it was intended for Dr. Anderson's inquiry. Does not the Minister understand that we are questioning the integrity not of the vet but of the Ministers from whom we had to drag this information out bit by bit?

Ben Bradshaw: It did not have to be dragged out from me. As I said, as soon as I was aware of the report, I put it into the public domain. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I usually have quite a lot of time, falls into the same trap as the hon. Member for Maidenhead and some of the media by misquoting not only Mr. Dring's report, but quotes in this House by my ministerial colleagues. The Secretary of State did not describe the Dring report as merely "musings", and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman check his facts in Hansard before misquoting hon. Members.
	I want to say something about endemic diseases. Again, the Government's record shows that we can get those under control, as is illustrated by BSE, which is now in sharp decline. From a peak of more than 37,000 clinical BSE cases in 1992, there were 184 clinical cases last year. We hope that beef exports banned under the previous Conservative Government will soon be able to resume.
	Brucellosis was confirmed in a suckler beef herd in Cornwall last month. The outbreak was detected early and dealt with swiftly, and has not affected our officially brucellosis-free status within the EU.
	Bovine TB is perhaps the most difficult animal health issue that we face. We recognise the distress and hardship to those whose businesses are placed under restriction, but there are no easy answers. This is a complex disease, and many of the scientific issues associated with it are poorly understood. However, the Government are determined to tackle the problem by working in partnership with farmers, vets, wildlife groups and others.
	There have been increasing calls by some for a policy of badger culling. The finding last year that reactive culling increased the number of TB breakdowns in cattle, compared with control areas, illustrates the need for caution. As I have said before, the Government are prepared to consider a badger-culling policy, but not in the absence of robust scientific proof that such a strategy would help.

Angela Browning: The Minister must be only too well aware that that work has already been done in the east Offaly projects in the Republic of Ireland.

David Drew: No!

Angela Browning: Yes, it has. I took a briefing from the chief vet there only last year on the follow-up to the projects. Why has the Minister not gone to Ireland and listened to what the Irish have done?

Ben Bradshaw: I have regular contact with my Irish colleagues, and if the hon. Lady had taken the trouble to ask them, she would have received the answer that the report has not yet been published. As soon as it is, we shall respond to it.

David Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for my sedentary intervention. The problem with the Irish experiment is that it is not underwritten by any scientific rationale. That makes it highly defective, but we will learn that lesson. Given that my hon. Friend seems to have spent an awful lot of time answering questions from the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who is unfortunately not with us today, would it not be helpful, in addition to considering the Select Committee report, to bring hon. Members in to look at the latest scientific evidence on bovine TB? I am alarmed that those on both sides of the debate seem to want to push it in a direction that is not underwritten by science. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way to get on top of this disease is to use the science in a satisfactory way?

Ben Bradshaw: As usual, my hon. Friend speaks very good sense, based on a wealth of experience. He might be interested to know that, on a number of occasions, I have offered a specialist briefing to the hon. Member for North Shropshire, but he has so far not taken up the invitation.

Andrew George: I am grateful for the Minister's forbearance and I entirely endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). The Minister said earlier that it was absolutely paramount that biosecurity measures should be put in place and that his Department placed a high priority on that issue. What priority does it place on fallen stock, in respect of the animal by-products order? When we debated the order in Committee on 15 September last year, he told me that he hoped that the fallen stock collection scheme that the Government were planning would be up and running in time for the new year. In a written answer to me on 12 January, he said:
	"We hope to be able to make an announcement on the start date shortly."—[Official Report, 12 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 495W.]
	In fact, the scheme might not be in place until the autumn, at the earliest. What does that tell us about the priority being given to this important matter by the Department?

Ben Bradshaw: I regret that the scheme is not already up and running. It is not exactly hot news that it is going to be delayed until the autumn; an announcement was made to that effect about a month ago. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we encountered a number of problems getting the agreement of the industry on the levels of charges for the different sectors and different sized holdings, for example. We also encountered specific problems relating to sheep fleeces, among other problems, which needed ironing out. The delay that we are facing does have the support of the industry, and I am confident that the scheme will be up and running this year.
	I need to say a little about plant health, because the hon. Member for Maidenhead addressed that issue in her speech. This country's record on protecting Britain from plant pests and diseases is an excellent one. The high level of UK expertise in this area, both in terms of the quality of scientific input and the effectiveness of on-the-ground inspection and enforcement is widely recognised. Indeed, that recognition has been acknowledged in the National Audit Office report, "Protecting England and Wales from plant pests and diseases", which also noted the country's good record on containing and eradicating outbreaks.
	Clearly, the best first line of defence is to keep pests and diseases out, and again the UK's record is good in that regard. But without a complete ban on trade it is not possible to prevent totally the entry of pests and diseases, and even then some will make their own way here. The plant health service's ability to respond rapidly to outbreaks is therefore vital. As my hon. Friend said, the response to last year's outbreak of potato ring rot in Wales was widely acknowledged in both Government and industry circles as textbook, and was illustrative of the professionalism of DEFRA's plant health service.
	Current and recent challenges, such as potato ring rot last year and the fungal disease phytophthora ramorum—sudden oak death—have highlighted the need for close collaboration between Government and growers. The potential impact of phytophthora ramorum on some of our native and non-native trees and other ecologically important species is a particular concern. As soon as the link between the strain found in Europe and the US was established, by a Forestry Commission scientist, the UK was instrumental in securing an EU co-ordinated approach to tackling the disease. I have heard it said several times that the disease continues to be imported into this country. However, the majority of the findings confirmed so far are of UK origin. That is why, at the end of last year, in addition to the EU measures, I agreed a 50 per cent. increase in resources devoted to the detection of the disease and research.
	Although it is still too early to be certain, our strategy appears to be working. Comparing the first three months of 2003 with 2004, the number of new outbreaks has dropped by 67 per cent. The first major Forestry Commission phytophthora ramorum woodland survey has also recently been concluded. The disease was not found during the survey of 1,348 sites visited across Great Britain. That is encouraging news but we still have a lot of work to do. I have seen for myself in California the devastation that this fungus can cause. It is imperative that we gain a clear understanding of the potential impact here, and in the meantime that we continue to take a precautionary approach. I am very conscious that that is creating difficulties for those affected in a number of areas. I am grateful for their continuing co-operation and understanding. For the Government's part, we will do our best to work with those concerned to ensure that the impact on their businesses of any necessary action is minimised.
	The hon. Member for Maidenhead had something to say about money. I was pleased about that. I shall give her a couple of examples comparing spending on this area now with spending under the previous Government. The total DEFRA spend on veterinary research in the last year of the Conservative Government, 1996–97, was £24,240,000. In the last year for which we have figures, 2001–02, it was £37,576,000. That is a huge increase, of 54 per cent. Similarly, with regard to resource allocation to the state veterinary service, the spend back in 1995 was £1.1 million, compared with £1.445 million now. I cannot do the maths off the top of my head, but that seems to me to be a 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. increase. Again, that is a huge increase in the Government's commitment to tackling the issue.
	Back in February, I wrote to the hon. Lady asking her about her financial commitment not just to this area of policy but to DEFRA as a whole. As we all know, her colleague the shadow Chancellor announced that only education and health would be protected in terms of spending in the first two years of the next Conservative Government, and that the cut that would have to be inflicted on DEFRA was equivalent to about £140 million. I sent that letter on 18 February, and I still have not received a reply. Perhaps when her colleague sums up at the end of today's debate, he might outline for the benefit of the House exactly where the Tory cuts on plant and animal health will fall.
	If one goes through a list of all the potential plant and animal diseases, and their prevalence in this country, the rest of Europe and other parts of the world, one sees that we have a much better record on plant and animal health than is generally assumed because of the major problems caused by BSE, foot and mouth and bovine TB. On plant health, we have one of the best records in the world. Diseases or pests that are common or endemic elsewhere, such as Colorado beetle, potato ring rot and thrips palmi are rare or absent here.
	Animal diseases such as rabies, swine fever, avian flu and brucellosis which are endemic or cause regular problems abroad are absent from this country today. In fact, contrary to what is said in the motion, there has been a positive trend despite a massive increase in trade. Activity to eradicate animal diseases has continued over the last 40 years under successive Governments, and foot and mouth, classical swine fever, brucellosis and Aujezsky's disease, for instance, are no longer endemic here. Any incursions of disease have been dealt with effectively to maintain our disease-free status.
	The foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 was brought under control in record time, and measures are now being taken on the basis of recommendations made by the Anderson and Royal Society reports. We are working with the farming industry to tackle tuberculosis in cattle, a problem that we share with a number of other countries including Ireland, the United States and New Zealand. We have also developed, for the first time, an animal health and welfare strategy, so that we can learn from the problems we have experienced and from best practice abroad.

Theresa May: Will the Minister give way?

Ben Bradshaw: I am sorry, but I am about to finish my speech. The hon. Lady had an opportunity to intervene earlier.
	The strategy will help producers to improve and protect their animals' health. It will provide incentives for good practice, and it aims to make the balance of the cost between producer, consumer and taxpayer more equitable if problems do occur.
	Against that background, I urge the House to reject the motion and support our amendment.

Roger Williams: First, let me draw attention to my entries in the Register of Members' Interests in relation to livestock farming.
	I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate these issues today, as too often we have been prevented from doing so. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) has frequently chided the Secretary of State for treating the House as a notice board rather than as a debating chamber where we can scrutinise Government policy, and perhaps contribute to making it more beneficial to the British agriculture industry. I would go a little further: I think that DEFRA does treat the House as a notice board, but often it has no messages to put on the notice board.
	The farming industry finds it very difficult to plan for the future when so little information is given to it. We are still waiting, for instance, for information on tenants and new entrants in the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy. They are the most vulnerable people in the industry. The over-30 month scheme seems to have disappeared over the political horizon, and if we had to depend on the Government for the fallen stock scheme the stock would remain fallen on the farms, which would cause a great problem for everyone.

James Gray: Thank God for the hunts.

Roger Williams: Yes!
	Bovine TB is getting out of hand. It is spreading across the country at an alarming rate. What causes farmers the most distress, though, is the Government's inactivity and lack of resolution.

Eric Martlew: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the spread of bovine TB. In Cumbria we were exempt, but when we were "killed out" after foot and mouth we imported cattle with TB from the south-west. It was not badgers that spread the disease in our area.

Roger Williams: I do not think we have yet resolved the question of whether TB is always spread from bovine to bovine, or from wildlife to bovine animals. Part of our concern is the need to get on and do the fundamental research that is so important. As the Minister said, we must make decisions based on sound science. If we start to base them on knee-jerk reactions, we will probably end up in a worse situation than at present. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) made a good point on the movement of cattle. We are considering the consultation document on TB and will have something to say on pre-movement and post-movement testing.
	The Government seem to have no confidence in themselves to deal with a number of the issues, and as a result, the industry has no confidence in the Government. That is a poor base on which to establish a sound and realistic approach to preventing disease from entering this country, and to stop the spread of disease if it does enter the country and take hold.
	Of course, I accept that the Government have had to start from a very weak base. It was the Conservative Government who closed veterinary investigation centres and presided over the closure of veterinary departments in universities. Had it not been for work done by my predecessor, they would have closed the veterinary department in my university, Cambridge, but luckily, that survives. They also centralised the state veterinary service and reduced the number of vets involved in it, and I shall come back to that. As the Minister said, when this Government took over, the contingency plans in place were often incomplete, inadequate or incomprehensible to read, and they were of no use in dealing with diseases when they occurred.
	Much mention has been made of the problem with imports, which is fundamental. I am sure that farmers' and the agriculture industry's trust in the Government would be enhanced if the Government were much more open about the importance of import controls. We can hardly hear them speak about import controls without their then going on to talk about biosecurity in the farming industry. Farmers accept that, but they would also like to see a much more open, definite and strong voice when the Government talk about import controls.
	Some 18 months ago, I spoke in support of a ten-minute Bill in the House that asked that import controls be put in the hands of one agency. I was therefore very encouraged when the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced one day that that would happen, and that controls would be put into the hands of Customs and Excise. That is the right move, but I do not know if it has achieved as much success as we would have liked. The sheer quantity, as the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) pointed out, of illegal meat that comes into this country makes it almost certain that at some stage we will get an exotic disease that is either infective to animals, whether to domestic animals or wildlife, or is a zoonotic disease—one which spreads to human beings. All the public uproar that we had over BSE and foot and mouth would be as nothing compared with the public uproar if a disease came in that affected the human population.

Russell Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I tried to intervene on the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). Much is said about import controls, and I wholeheartedly agree that despite what we have done, we need to toughen them up. Much emphasis is given to what the United States does, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady that what we have seized in this country is only a fraction of what they have seized in the United States. We say that that country has a good system, but it seizes literally hundreds of thousands of kilos. That seems to be forgotten.

Roger Williams: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but there is a huge market in ethnic foods in this country, which contributes to the scale of the problem.
	I have visited Heathrow, through which, as the hon. Member for Maidenhead said, more than 60 million people a year pass. That is an enormous number of inspections to carry out. We will never tackle this problem if we attempt to do so on a random or lottery basis, and greater emphasis must be placed on an intelligence-driven system. The people involved in illegal meat imports are often the same people who are involved in narcotic and drug imports. They see the former as an almost equally profitable business to be in, but without the great danger of being apprehended, and with virtually no danger of any punishment if they are caught.
	In addition to an intelligence-based system, we want magistrates and judges to be given more training in the nature of this offence, and to be made aware of the severe consequences if illegal meat imports continue. The best deterrent of all is a very stiff sentence. We look to the courts and the training systems to ensure that that issue is addressed.

David Kidney: I missed the hon. Gentleman this morning at Windsor Great Park—[Interruption.] I was there and he was not. He is making some very constructive suggestions in respect of illegal imports, but will he distinguish—as I asked the Minister to do— between such imports and legal commercial imports conducted through import posts, at which the inspections are thorough and reliable?

Roger Williams: I am not sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman. If he is talking about commercial meat imports into this country that come through recognised ports and which are declared, I take his point. We still have a problem with beef imports from south America, for example, where foot and mouth remains endemic. We import from areas that are "foot and mouth free", and we depend very much on the work done in those countries to ensure that meat is sent there with a credible assurance that it is free of foot and mouth.
	One of my concerns is that when cargo consignments enter this country, they are often labelled as consolidated, with no indication given of what might be in the container or package. Clive Lawrence—he has been mentioned before—points that out as a great weakness in the system. It would be of great help at airports and seaports if full details of the contents of imports were given on containers.

David Drew: The problem with the debate about illegal imports—and legal imports, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) alluded to—is that it is not as straightforward as it appears. The EU has been in dispute with the US for countless years about hormones in beef, and in my view the EU is right; indeed, I had an argument with my noble Friend Lord Rooker about whether such opposition is legitimate. The situation is not as straightforward as "Illegal imports bad, legal imports good."

Roger Williams: I take the point that the situation is more complicated than that.
	I shall have to gallop through the remainder of my speech if other Members are going to contribute. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives raised the subject of foot and mouth and Mr. Dring's report in the House on 11 March, and he wrote to the Secretary of State on 17 March. My party is no longer calling for a full public inquiry into foot and mouth because we believe that the time for such an inquiry has passed, and the expense and various organisational problems involved in having one are not justified. Things have moved on, the reports have been produced and vaccination is obviously going to play a bigger part in combating any future outbreak. However, Mr. Dring's comments do bear further investigation. We need to look into what happened at the Waugh farm, and why the problems were not dealt with sooner, and perhaps the licence revoked.
	BSE is a classic case of our not addressing the fundamental science. We still do not understand the nature of the infective agent. We do not understand entirely how it spreads from bovine to bovine or whether it is also found in ovine animals. Equally, we do not know with any certainty how it spreads from cattle to human. That has resulted in huge problems of expense. No one who has had a blood transfusion since, I think, 1980 can donate blood, because we did not understand then and we do not understand now. Investment in fundamental science is always cost-effective for the nation, because it allows us to make decisions with certainty rather than guessing.
	Has the Minister fully investigated the problems of developing an effective vaccine for tuberculosis? Is it being held up by financial considerations, or by the fact that it takes a number of generation times to do the development work—or are we simply not putting enough pressure on the research establishment? Very difficult decisions will shortly have to be taken.
	Professor Godfray's report said that Professor Bourne's recommendation not to continue with active culling was implemented too soon. That is a classic example of two different interpretations of the same evidence.

Ben Bradshaw: There has been a lot of misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what Professor Godfray said about the abandoning of the reactive cull. Neither he nor John Bourne said, contrary to some press reports, that it was the wrong thing to do. They both said that, in terms of science, it would have been preferable for the cull to have continued, but given the fact that the independent scientific group found—Professor Godfray did not challenge this—that the reactive cull had increased the incidence of TB in cattle by 27 per cent. in the affected areas, both gentlemen understood why, politically, the Government could not possibly have continued with the cull.

Roger Williams: If we consider the whole process of the Krebs trials, we see that several issues need clarification, either from the Minister or from his officials.
	We are very pleased that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is conducting another investigation of TB. I do not see the Chairman here today, but I urge the Committee to visit Ireland. There is a lot of discussion about whether the work being done there has the imprimatur of the peer review that is so essential to science, but the Committee should go there and scrutinise it, just to see whether it has any implications for the British situation, because there are a lot of similarities in relation to the countryside and the nature of our agriculture.
	The outbreak of ring rot in potatoes was in my constituency. There was disagreement in the House about who was responsible for controlling it—the politicians or the officials. We should all have enough good grace to say that the person really responsible for ensuring that the disease did not spread was the farmer. We talk about biosecurity, and he had excellent records and could trace the path of every single potato that had left or entered his farm. I do not want to make the point again in great detail today, but Ministers refused my invitation to meet the farmer, John Morgan, who could explain the position to them. There is a man suffering huge financial losses, for which no blame has been apportioned. I believe that his position should be examined: it is a one-off, and if it had not been for his immaculate work in maintaining records and doing his job, the problem could have been a lot worse than it is.
	I finish with a brief review of the veterinary service in Britain. The state veterinary service has been centralised and reduced: it is no longer as reactive as it was to local developments. The British Veterinary Association made contact with me today and asked me to ask the Minister how many times vets go out on livestock farms nowadays to examine the livestock itself. Not only is the state veterinary service much reduced, but because the livestock industry has gone through difficult financial times, large animal practices are not as thick on the ground as they were. More and more of vets' work is connected with pets and small animals. Vets seldom go out to look at the stock on farms. Indeed, even during emergencies, few vets are available to treat large animals. I could provide many examples to back that assertion, if necessary. Will the Minister respond to my points about the state veterinary service and private veterinary practice? I reiterate my point about the importance of reflecting on what is happening in Ireland.
	The Minister provided some evidence to show that the Government were spending more money on research, but we say that it is very well spent indeed, and if there is any more investment is to be made, it should be in the fundamental sciences, because in the long run, they will prove most effective in dealing with the problems that we are debating this afternoon.

Eric Martlew: I shall start by attacking the Opposition's logic in claiming that the Government's record does not bear looking at. I shall then gently criticise my Government for some of the things that they have not yet done.
	It seems to be my lot to speak about agriculture. Over the years, I have tried to get away from it, but the reality is that I am in my place to talk about it again. In 1986, I was working for one of the largest dairies in the country when the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl took place, nearly closing the factory. To be honest, biosecurity would have had no effect on that particular incident.
	It may be asked why I am bringing up events that happened in 1986. First, I remember that in 1986 the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—now the noble Lord Jopling—said that the matter was under control and that the problem would be solved in six months. However, farms—many in Wales and, I understand, some in my county of Cumbria—are still affected by radiation from Chernobyl. So nearly two decades on, we are still suffering from problems stemming from Chernobyl. The Government of 1986 allowed lamb contaminated with radiation to enter the food chain. When I became a Member of Parliament, I sat on the Agriculture Select Committee, which conducted an inquiry into that matter.
	Shortly after that, I recall the problem of salmonella. It was a major issue because the responsible Minister and former MP, Edwina Currie, said that most British eggs were contaminated with it. That created panic in the country and meant the destruction of millions of hens. It took the industry years to recover and brought an end to a ministerial career. I recall debating the issues in the House and quoting Peter Rabbit—the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the time was John MacGregor, and it seemed appropriate.
	Some people say that the problems caused by foot and mouth disease are of the same magnitude as those caused by BSE. They are not. The difference is that BSE has killed 140 people, including an 18-year-old constituent of mine.
	Moreover, BSE was not imported, and did not come to Britain in someone's suitcase. It was manufactured in the UK, by the previous Conservative Government, who allowed a reduction in the rendering temperatures used on material going into food. I do not say that they manufactured BSE deliberately, but the problem arose directly out of that decision.
	Today, the Opposition's criticism of the Government does not amount to very much, as an inspection of the motion makes clear. Some Opposition Members attending this debate were in the House at the time of the BSE scare, and some were even Ministers. In fact, I accept some responsibility too, as I was a member of the Select Committee that investigated the matter. We concluded that it was safe to eat beef, but we were wrong. It was not safe to eat beef at that time, but we did not know the science involved. Later, I was in a car on the way back from a by-election when I heard the then Secretary of State for Health admit to the House that BSE could be transmitted from animals to human beings. We must not think that BSE and foot and mouth are of equivalent seriousness, as the foot and mouth outbreak did not lead directly to any human deaths.
	I want to say, by way of a gentle word to the Minister, that it is not a good idea to keep on saying that the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak was the largest in Europe, or the world. I do not think that this Government, or any other, could have tackled it any better, but the truth is that they did not tackle it very well. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) is not present, as the foot and mouth outbreak was tackled well across the border in Scotland. The problems there were far smaller than in England.
	I represent Carlisle, so I was at the epicentre of the outbreak. It was not very pleasant, and I accept that the problem went far beyond the loss of animals. A whole way of life was lost, and many people lost their life's work. That was very distressing.
	My constituency is mainly urban, and I live in the centre of it. However, I could smell the meat singeing on the pyres all around. I vowed that we should never have to go through that again—in my constituency or anywhere else.
	Part of the problem in tackling the outbreak stemmed from the fact that the previous Conservative Government had reduced the number of veterinary surgeons. If another outbreak occurred today, we would not have enough vets to deal with it. I suggested, during the 2001 outbreak, that we should establish the veterinary equivalent of the Territorial Army. Under that plan, we would have vets in reserve who could be called on in emergency. I am not sure that we have done that.
	My biggest criticism of the farming industry and the Government—and the Opposition too—is that, both during the outbreak and since, everyone has avoided tackling the question of vaccination. I do not believe that we can make the country's borders secure. In 2001, the foot and mouth epidemic caused the general election to be delayed. If people wanted to create panic in this country, all they have to do is import the foot and mouth virus. That would be bioterrorism, and it could happen.
	In such circumstances, it would not matter how many sniffer dogs we had at our ports. I remember asking my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who in 2001 was Minister for Fisheries and the Countryside, if he knew the names of the only two dogs that we had. For the first time in my experience, he was not able to answer the question. In reality, our borders will never be secure. Although I agree that we should try our best to make them so, there will always be the chance of disease coming into the country. That is why I believe that we should make sure we never have foot and mouth again by introducing routine vaccination. It is sad that this country—under the previous Government, though I do not blame them for that—persuaded the rest of Europe away from vaccination. Unless we introduce that as policy, we will, sooner or later, have another outbreak of foot and mouth.

David Kidney: We all hope that there will never be another outbreak of foot and mouth disease, or that if there is, it is as long until then as the last one was from the one before. Vaccination is important, but when we considered it at the height of the last outbreak, retailers would not accept it for meat to be sold and we thought that the public would not buy meat if animals had been vaccinated, which was the justification for the retailers' decision. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should now be raising awareness and winning minds about vaccination for the future?

Eric Martlew: I totally agree. The company that runs the dairy where I used to work threatened to close it if we introduced vaccination, because it believed that the product would not be acceptable. That was nonsense. We need only to think of the number of other things for which animals are vaccinated. It was a panic reaction by the retailers. Even so, people in Cumbria practised on oranges—that is how close we came to vaccination. In the end, the National Farmers Union decided that it was not a good idea, although I suspect that most farmers in the area thought that it was. We have to take the opportunity now when there is no panic to get retailers, wholesalers and the industry to accept vaccination. It will be too late once there is another panic, as my hon. Friend says. Vaccination is the way forward.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) mentioned a vaccine for bovine tuberculosis, and I agreed with what he said. About 12 years ago, I tabled a parliamentary question asking why we had not developed a vaccine for that. We have had one for human TB for 50 or 60 years. The answer was that research was going on, but that a vaccine was a long way in the future. Twelve years is a long time into the future, and I do not think that the issue has been given enough priority. One reason for that was that everyone hoped it would go away. It will not.
	Unless we have a vaccine, some difficult decisions will have to be taken. On one side, the farming community will rightly want to protect stock, and the Government will spend millions of pounds paying them compensation. On the other side will be the animal welfare people. It is a delight to see a badger in the wild. Any Government who underestimate the effect of carrying out a major badger cull are deluding themselves. I hope that we shall work hard on a vaccine. If the problem is resources, perhaps we should switch them from somewhere else, because that would save money in the long run.
	I will conclude because I notice that a lot more people want to speak than I had expected. The Opposition had no right to table their motion because their record does not stand looking at. That is true on how they responded to Chernobyl, on salmonella and, especially, on how BSE started in this country, not just affecting farm incomes and animals, but affecting humans. Even now, it is unsafe for the vast majority of us to give blood because of BSE under the previous Government. Foot and mouth taught us a lesson, although I am not sure that the Government have learnt it totally.
	I have explained my particular solution. It does not worry me that we might have an outbreak of foot and mouth disease tomorrow. We know what to do because we have just done it. People will be put in place and it will be sorted. What really worries me is if we have an outbreak in 15 or 20 years, by which time the lessons will have been forgotten and some community will suffer as mine did.
	For those reasons I will support the Government today, but I am concerned that they have not learnt all the lessons from the foot and mouth outbreak.

Adrian Flook: So far there has been much discussion of the foot and mouth outbreak of three years ago, but I should like to address a specific problem that is current and is getting worse, and that is bovine tuberculosis. Large swathes of my constituency are already affected and infected. That is true also along much of the Somerset and Devon border. I am sure that my colleagues who are here today will also wish to comment on bovine TB.
	Nationally we are aware that the problem is getting worse. In the past year there have been 18 per cent. more incidents and 20 per cent. more cattle have been culled. It is quickly becoming, not an endemic disease, but an epidemic. On several occasions the Minister has rightly acknowledged that there are a number of difficulties. The Government have published a strategy, imposed further measures to stop the spread from cattle to cattle, although some of those worries are much exaggerated, and have discontinued trapping badgers in reactive areas in the Krebs trials.
	It is probably worth spending a few moments on the costs of those trials. They have already cost tens of millions. Compensation paid to farmers is increasing dramatically from just over £3.5 million four or five years ago to £31 million in 2002–03. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) has done a lot of work, and as we know, asked a lot of questions on this subject. He has ascertained the sum that could well be spent. According to a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report, "Preparing for a new Strategy on Bovine TB", it would appear that over the next eight years we could well spend £1,000 million on just trying to contain, and not even beat, bovine TB. That figure does not measure what will have to be spent by farmers themselves, so the total figure will be in excess of £1,000 million.
	The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) is concerned and in an intervention mentioned cattle to cattle spread. It appears from a demonstration from reactive areas that the Government are doing only half their job. We know, to put it bluntly, that if we remove infected cattle but leave behind the source of the infection, which is arguably now proven to be the badgers in large areas of my constituency, the problem remains. More cattle become infected. That does not make sense.
	My constituency has "no cull" areas, centred around Huntsham in Devon and in Ashbrittle, Chipstable, Skilgate and elsewhere in Somerset. It also has a proactive Krebs area centred on Hawkridge, which includes Dulverton, Winsford and Withypool—all mainly on Exmoor, as the Minister will no doubt know. The reactive area was centred around the Brendon Hill and Brompton Regis area. As it has been abandoned now, there are at least 40 farmers in my constituency who are impacted. In short, the cessation of the Krebs reactive badger cull has not removed the infected badgers; they are allowed to roam around. Being weak and suffering from a disease effectively means that they are moving into other areas. In that way more and more farmers are being impacted. The Minister gave the order to stop the reactive trials because, he said, there had been an average 27 per cent. increase in the number of cattle herds that had been infected in the trial areas—but the numbers ranged from 3.5 to 53 per cent. That is even worse than the spread to clean farms in the no badger cull areas. The implication was that the reactive cull had spread the weaker badgers infected with TB even further afield.
	Christopher Thomas-Everard and his son have a farm in my constituency, and the Minister will probably have heard of them. They have made a detailed study of the issue. In 1979, only 0.1 per cent. of herds in the UK had TB, although the figure was 0.5 per cent. in the south-west. The disease was nearly eradicated, but now 40 per cent. of herds in the hotspot area of west Somerset in my constituency cannot sell any cattle because they have TB. There are now 20 parishes in west Somerset with TB, as opposed to one a few years ago. In Cornwall, Devon and Somerset, the incidence of bovine TB in clean herds has gone from 403 in 2000 to 1,240 in 2002.
	How was the disease introduced to west Somerset? Some people believe that it was brought in when some Animal Liberation Front activist moved TB-infected badgers from Chagford, near Dartmoor, on to Exmoor. There is good evidence for that, but the problem is now well out of control. One of the saddest aspects, for those of us who care about animal conservation, is that the massive rise in the incidence of the disease has meant that lots of badgers have died, cattle have to be slaughtered before time and farmers have to put in great efforts to make the testing work.
	The hon. Member for Carlisle made an impassioned plea for a vaccination. It is clear from Professor Godfray's report, and recent parliamentary answers, that there is no prospect of a vaccine being developed in time to save the Minister from having to make difficult decisions. However, given the amount of money being spent, someone in the Treasury may make the decision for the DEFRA Ministers.
	We could do more to improve matters now, such as introducing gamma interferon testing. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's views on that. I am told that DEFRA completed a feasibility study in 2001, three years ago, but we still have no word on when the tests will be available for wider use. The Government have not published a progress report on their strategy to tackle TB in cattle since January 2001, and the Minister says that he is consulting—yet again—until June 2004. Farmers are not being helped. We need to use today's knowledge and sound science, and the Government must get a grip on what they intend to do and do it, instead of just consulting.
	One option is to introduce "clean ring" testing of badgers in TB areas. We could also explain, without emotive use of language, that TB is a badger disease as well as a cattle disease. It has horrible effects on badgers as well as cattle and we need to do something about it, for the sake of the badgers and not just for the sake of cattle herds. We also need to provide a reliable TB test that does not show so many false positives.
	The Government have failed to address many of the real problems of bovine TB, not only in my constituency but in the whole of the south-west. They have let down the very people they are there for—the British farmers—and caused unnecessary suffering to many animals. When the broader population find out—I have many urban constituents—that the problem has and will cost taxpayers a fortune, they will be very annoyed with the Government, and rightly so.

David Kidney: Thank goodness, I have the opportunity to explain my presence in Windsor Great park this morning before a story gets out involving a scandal and the allegation that I met the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). This morning saw the launch of a campaign by the Ancient Tree Forum and the Woodland Trust for greater recognition and protection of ancient and historic trees. Given that this country has about 80 per cent. of Europe's ancient and historic trees, we bear a pretty heavy responsibility. I shall return to that subject on a more appropriate occasion.
	I wish to refer to the foot and mouth outbreak two years ago. It was a most distressing time. I remember the day that I went to my local district veterinary office in Stafford. Along with the Army and the veterinary service were vets who had been brought in from all around the world to help. I met a vet from New Zealand, a Spanish vet and a South African vet on that day. It was a Sunday, but the place was teeming with people trying to get on top of the outbreak. I also met many farmers and none greater than John Lewis, who was there to liaise between the veterinary service and local farmers. He was rightly recognised in the Queen's honour list for his work during the outbreak. I saw all the heartbreak and upset, but I also saw the closed countryside and the businesses involved in catering, leisure and tourism that suffered too. That is how serious the problem was.
	We all hope that such an outbreak will never happen again, but how realistic is that hope? We clearly need to plan just in case it ever happens again. One of the lessons learned from the outbreak that appeared in the Anderson report was that it is one thing to write a report afterwards and draw up a contingency plan but, if there is no outbreak for years afterwards, that plan will become out of date. The contingency plan that was dusted off two years ago from the great outbreak in the 1960s in Staffordshire and Cheshire proved to be a waste of paper.
	The crucial differences are that a notifiable disease was not notified on the latest occasion and the great increase in the number of, and speed at which, animals are transported around the country. Who knows what the great differences will be in the next outbreak? It is important that we keep contingency planning up to date, and DEFRA has at least made the commitment that it will do that.

Huw Edwards: On contingency plans, I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to acknowledge the work that is being undertaken and is being co-ordinated by DEFRA that will culminate in June in Operation Hornbeam. It is a massive contingency simulation exercise.

David Kidney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that fact and how important it is. He is right to say that we must ensure that contingency plans are up to date by carrying out operations from time to time.
	On foot and mouth, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) about the vaccine. If an outbreak took place tomorrow, we know from the contingency plan that there would be an immediate stop to transportation and to exports. We know that the countryside would not all be closed, but it would be selectively closed. Crucially, we also know that cattle would be culled again. That is still the official policy of the Government and this Parliament, and we are not going to disagree with the Government. A future outbreak will be controlled by a cull. If we want to do something different, it is important that we have the debate, provide the education and engage in awareness raising and the winning of minds between now and the next outbreak. That is an important issue for us to deal with in future.
	I shall deal next with illegal imports. Perhaps I can elaborate now on my interventions about border import posts. I have had many meetings with local farmers in my constituency and they often raise the issue of illegal imports of meat. It is extremely important to them. Whenever I mention border import posts, it is clear that many people do not understand that there is a system that works effectively in respect of the proper commercial import of food into this country. As far as I am aware, no one questions the effectiveness of that system which, let us remind ourselves, is multi-agency, involving trading standards, Customs and Excise, immigration, Home Office and so on. Between 20 per cent. and 50 per cent. of the whole delivery of meat is inspected for quality on each occasion. That is why I say that the system is substantial, reliable and, as far as we can tell, robust. It is an important message of reassurance to our public that there is a system and it works.
	We are focusing today on an area where things may not work as well as they should—that is, illegal imports, which cover a wide range. There are the personal imports by people coming into the country. I have stood in the arrival lounge of an airport and seen the flood of people coming off an aeroplane. If we stopped them all in a queue and searched each of them and their luggage, there would be a total breakdown of travel by air. I have stood on the ground at the port at Dover and watched a ferry unload all its vehicles—cars and lorries—which have all come past me in a great rush. Again, if we stopped and inspected each of those, there would be a total dislocation of travel and trade in this country, so those are not realistic solutions.
	Part of the solution must be the collection of intelligence and risk assessment, to pick out the people and vehicles that need to be stopped and searched. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, that when we catch people who are breaking the law in that way, they must go to court and they must be severely punished. We need to make sure that that message gets back to everybody else as a deterrent. If the courts are letting us down on the sentences, I do not see how we can say that is the Government's fault. We in this place must raise the awareness of judges that they are letting the country down with lenient sentences.
	As a footnote to this part of my contribution, I point out that about two years ago, before the new strategy for controlling illegal imports, including the transfer of responsibility to Customs and Excise, was put in place, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs organised a seminar for Members of both Houses to discuss the best policy for illegal import controls. Measures that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs described as successes have been adopted since that seminar. I do not say that hon. Members like me who attended that meeting contributed all the good points that became Government policy, but it would be good of the Government to acknowledge that others contributed to the development of their policies that have been successful.
	I agree with hon. Members who asked today why there cannot be similar input from us on TB. I remind the Minister that two debates ago on bovine TB in Westminster Hall, I suggested to him that a seminar would be a useful part of the process of developing his new strategy, and he agreed to hold such a seminar. I hope that that will take place soon.
	I have one last point to make on the effectiveness of our immigration controls for meat. It is anecdotal, but hon. Members tend to judge issues by their casework, do they not? I never had a complaint about illegal imports of meat from an illegal importer before we passed over responsibility to Customs and Excise, but since we did so, I have had two complaints of excessive attention to duty by Customs and Excise in seizing meat from constituents of mine—one case involved a car coming into the country by ferry at a port, and the second, a minibus coming by ferry through Dover, when every one of the minibus passengers had their luggage searched and illegal meats seized from them. That is anecdotal, and perhaps other hon. Members can say whether they have had similar experiences. At least it shows some evidence of the effectiveness of the new policy.
	My final contribution to the debate is on the subject with which the Minister began his contribution—animal health and welfare. He mentioned that later this year the Government's strategy on that would be developed. I agree with him about good animal husbandry, and biosecurity is a fundamental building block of security for the future of the country's animal welfare. Will there be legislation to underpin the strategy? It is understandable that the House is clamouring for more controls, but will that lead to more regulations that place more burdens on farmers, who are hard-pressed to deal with current regulations? I would hate to think that, with the best of intentions, hon. Members might impose on farmers new burdens that they could do without.
	Let me share with the Minister my view of the solution. The more we can move towards a whole farm approach, the better. I know that we have tried a little bit in that context with regard to payments and audit, but we should view the whole farm as a unit for animal health and welfare assurance, including the inspection that goes with such an approach and with regard to risk assessment. Perhaps we could use new legislation to say that we are lifting burdens away from farmers while establishing new and better practices for the future. I hope that that is a constructive suggestion that I can leave with the Minister.

Angela Browning: I should like to begin with a point about which I intervened on the Minister. Other hon. Members have mentioned veterinarians, and I wish to reiterate the genuine concern that exists about the number of vets available whose training is based on farm animal welfare. As we have heard, many vets today decide to specialise in companion animals, which means that fewer of them have farm animal experience of the sort that the Department needs to call on when there is a crisis such as foot and mouth.
	I repeat to the Minister that there is clear evidence—I am sure that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has spoken to him, and if not, I am sure that it would do so—about the fact that the training of qualified vets in other EU countries does not concentrate as much on farm animal husbandry in its course and syllabus as our own veterinary qualifications.
	This is not an issue of knocking people from European countries who come to work as vets in this country, as they are clearly entitled to do; it is about looking at the resource of qualified veterinarians who have the expertise that might need to be called upon in an emergency. One of the lessons that was learned from the last foot and mouth disease outbreak was that many retired vets who were living in the community could have been called upon and would have brought to the situation not only their expertise as veterinarians, but a valuable resource that was clearly needed during the foot and mouth crisis—local knowledge. That would have helped vets who were called in from throughout the country to assist.
	I raised the issue of security at ports and airports on several occasions during the passage of the Bill that became the Animal Health Act 2002, as I served on the Committee that considered that Bill. The Government have made some gestures, but I am not happy in my mind that these matters are clear in practice. There is a paucity of people coming before the court to be tried and convicted, and we have heard about the rather laissez-faire attitude of the people who sit and hear the very few such cases that do come before them.
	In 2002, I tabled a written question asking the Secretary of State
	"what plans she has to introduce amnesty collection bins for food products at UK air and seaports."
	The reply stated:
	"We are currently consulting the Home Office, the Department for Transport, HM Customs and Excise, and the relevant ports and airports . . . on . . . amnesty bins or equivalent measures".—[Official Report, 5 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 228W.]
	I do not travel abroad widely or extensively; as the Minister knows, I live in God's own county, and who would want to travel abroad when they live in Devon? None the less, I do so occasionally, and I think that in the past year, I have visited Canada and two or three EU countries.

Russell Brown: What about Belgium?

Angela Browning: I have not visited Belgium; a little shiver just went through me.
	The provision at Dublin airport was implemented as a direct response to our foot and mouth problem in the UK, and the airport lounge contains not only amnesty bins, but a veterinary office. Other countries perceive the issue in that way, and I would like an update from the Minister on illegal imports, which other hon. Members discussed today, and personal imports.
	It is important that passengers on planes are asked to fill in a slip and declare what they have. When one enters the United States, for example, one is asked to tick a box. Dogs can deal with the problem without holding up passengers who are moving through airports, because they can sniff out imports without bags having to be opened and examined. More dogs should be involved, because they deal with the problem so effectively.
	When the Secretary of State responded to the foot and mouth disease inquiry reports on the Floor of the House, she made a clear commitment, and it would be good if the Minister were to update us on why so few people are apprehended at our ports and airports. Are all ports and airports covered or are there gaps? What happens to people who arrive in this country by sea from the Channel Islands or mainland Europe? When one arrives at a major airport in this country—in particular, Gatwick and Heathrow—one sometimes does not see any officials, and I should like to hear more about that point.
	I shall briefly discuss one or two specific animal diseases, on which I should like to hear the latest updates from the Minister. The Animal Health Act includes measures to rid our national flock of scrapie, which is a laudable aim that I support. When we debated the 2002 Act, however, the fact that scrapie is rife in eastern European countries was mentioned, and I discussed the matter with the Minister for the Environment. What will happen to our scrapie policy after 1 May, when some of those countries join the EU? It would be nonsensical to rid the UK flock of scrapie only to expose it to imports of breeding stock or meat—I do not mean that sheep eat sheep. What procedure will be implemented to protect the national flock from increased access to scrapie from eastern European countries?
	On avian influenza and Newcastle disease, some hon. Members attended the British Poultry Council's lunch, at which Lord Whitty and Mr. John Maunder, who is my constituent and the retiring chairman of the British Poultry Council, gave a presentation. In his address, Mr. Maunder mentioned that the council works with DEFRA on environmental matters and contingency planning for an outbreak of avian influenza or Newcastle disease. He said:
	"The Plan is good and"
	the industry
	"will work within it. There are some aspects such as movement licences that still have to be finalised."
	When will those movement licences be finalised to complete the protection against avian flu?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) and several other hon. Friends mentioned bovine TB. When I was a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from 1994 to 1997, I was aware of bovine TB, because, when I was elected in 1992, it had just spread down from Exmoor to affect the area to the north of my constituency. Bovine TB has now spread through my constituency, and it would be on its way into the Minister's constituency if the Minister's constituency contained any farms. The Minister will know from his knowledge of the geography of the south-west peninsula that bovine TB descended across Bodmin moor from higher moorland areas such as Dartmoor and Exmoor.
	From 1994 to 1996, I could see the disease moving to other parts of the country, going round the corner to Bristol and up to the borders of Herefordshire and Worcestershire. The policy that we had put in place to deal with and control the disease appeared not to be working. I had many meetings to discuss the problem, including with the Irish Government, who had put into practice a cordon sanitaire. My boss—the Agriculture Minister—and I agreed to set up the Krebs committee because we felt that any dramatic change in policy had first to be assessed by an independent panel, then brought back to this House. However, the election and the change of Government intervened.
	If the Minister really wants to stop the spread of the disease, which is rather different from containing it where it already is, will he consider what has happened in the Republic of Ireland? As I see it, the only option is to throw a cordon around certain areas where we can see that it is travelling up or—as in the south-west peninsula, where the Minister and I have our seats—down the country. Having held the office that I did for three years, I understand the problems and risks involved and realise that it is a hugely difficult call politically, but it is one of the options that he must consider.
	Linked to that, it is well worth considering the work that is being done in the Republic of Ireland on vaccination. One of the things about research—I was always sensitive to this, as is the Minister, I am sure—is that scientists want to bid for those valuable pots of money, whether public or private, to follow their own interests in terms of what research might bring. However, we should not let the fear of duplicating effort preclude us from looking beyond these shores to where research is being done that might help to fast-track some of the solutions that we need, particularly in the difficult area of bovine tuberculosis.

Jackie Lawrence: My constituency is a large rural constituency, and I believe that we have approximately 1,800 farms in the whole of the county that is covered by my seat and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger).
	I came to the debate intending not necessarily to take part but to listen to what the Minister had to say about several issues about which I have written to him—not least bovine TB. The title of the debate as it appears on the Order Paper is "Government's Record on Animal and Plant Diseases", and I was stunned that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made no reference to the impact of bovine TB or BSE on the farms in my area. That is a clear indication of how out of touch Tory Front Benchers are in relation to issues that affect my farmers. I am pleased that at least the hon. Members for Taunton (Mr. Flook) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) recognised the importance of bovine TB to farmers in west Wales, which is a large dairy area.

John Whittingdale: The hon. Lady is accusing Opposition Front Benchers of not being interested in bovine TB, yet the Minister repeatedly criticises my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) for asking questions on that subject, which he and the hon. Lady are right in saying is of enormous concern to farmers.

Jackie Lawrence: If it was deemed so important, one might thought that a significant portion of the speech by the hon. Member for Maidenhead would refer to it, but anyone who was present would realise that that was not the case.
	I want to refer to issues that have been brought to my attention by farmers in my constituency. Pembrokeshire and west Wales generally is a major dairy-producing area in the UK. Every time I meet farmers, they give me anecdotal evidence that the problem of bovine TB has increased dramatically in recent years. That was also reflected in the comments of the hon. Members for Taunton and for Tiverton and Honiton. Anyone who has anything to do with farming knows the devastating impact on farmers of finding out that they are personally affected—and I know that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) had farming experience before he came into this place.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) and I usually meet jointly with our local farmers, and we have written to the Government urging them to take action on this issue for west Wales farmers. I have to say that, in general, the response has been very positive. However, I would like to raise one or two points today. The first involves road-kill. One of the major issues raised by my farmers is the fact that so many badgers are killed on the roads these days. If there were a means by which they could be analysed to find out the extent of the incidence of TB, it would go a long way towards helping us to obtain the necessary scientific information. I was pleased to hear that the Minister had no objection to a cull based on scientific evidence. Our farmers are saying that there is a desperate need to pursue that information, and the examination of road-kill badgers could certainly help in that regard.
	The issue of bovine TB is often seen in terms of a conflict between farmers and badger groups, but it should not be. The hon. Member for Taunton touched on this point. It is not an issue of conflict. It is in the badgers' and the badger groups' own interest to ensure that the issue is dealt with and that the badger population is kept healthy.

Angela Browning: I have found that one of the real difficulties is persuading badger groups that badgers are responsible for bovine TB. They are in denial about that, and although we present the evidence of diseased badgers, they do not necessarily accept the connection.

Jackie Lawrence: The hon. Lady is absolutely right; that is the point that we have to make.
	At the moment, the evidence is anecdotal. We need scientific evidence to show that connection. We need to say to the badger groups, "Yes, you have the badgers' best interests at heart, but you are not in conflict with the farmers because it is in their interest—in regard to their cattle—and the badgers' interest to get to the bottom of this. That is the way to ensure that as well as having a healthy environment in which the farmers can be sure the disease is not being passed on to their cattle, there is also a healthy badger population." TB is an awful disease. We know that from history, from when it affected the human population, and we need to get across to the badger groups the message that it should not be something that they want to see perpetuated in the badger population.
	I return to the point that I made in my earlier intervention. The issue is money. All this work costs money. The figures that I have seen show that the Government spend £15 million a year on TB research, and £1.5 million on TB vaccination research. I also have figures showing that £74 million is spent on the TB programme overall. That is a significant amount of money. Why will the Opposition not state categorically that they would be prepared to continue with that investment, rather than cutting back on it in line with their shadow Chancellor's statement on public spending?
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire mentioned the state veterinary service, which is an important factor, as is the availability of vets to treat farm animals. In rural areas such as mine, that availability seems to be diminishing, and that must be addressed. No one has mentioned veterinary medicine today. Farmers tell me time and again that they end up paying so much more for drugs here than people do in countries such as Ireland. I have experience of that myself. I went on holiday to Ireland with my dog, which required treatment, and I was stunned to discover how cheap it was to get an animal treated there. I urge the Government to ask the Competition Commission to investigate this issue. It would be wholly wrong if British farmers were paying more than necessary for essential drugs in fighting disease.
	One more issue in relation to the availability of veterinary medicines is that the European draft directive on the dispensing of veterinary medicines could mean that medication that is currently available through agricultural suppliers will no longer be available through that means. Farmers will therefore have to pay for a veterinary surgeon to prescribe medication. That issue is of major concern to local farmers in my area, and has been raised with me, which is why I want to raise it with the Minister.
	Finally, on bush meat, I congratulate the Farmers Union of Wales and the International Fund for Animal Welfare on their work to combat the trade generally. It is an important health issue and a conservation issue. In terms of health, it has been shown that there are links, for example, between simian immunodeficiency virus in primates and HIV/AIDS, and diseases crossing species barriers.
	Again, however, we return to the issue of funding. We have seen in recent years a massive increase in this Government's spending on international development. Bush meat studies have shown a distinct link between the production of bush meat and poverty. DEFRA has given £80,000 to the bush meat working group to fund examination of the issue generally, and the Government have made a commitment to reach 0.7 per cent. of GDP for international development. If we are serious about tackling all these problems, we must make a commitment to maintain and increase that funding. I regret that those on the Conservative Front Bench refuse to do that, and I would very much like to hear them make that commitment.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I want to read out a piece from the Western Daily Press two days ago written by the farming correspondent Chris Rundle, which sums up the situation nicely:
	"The leader of Britain's livestock farmers has called on his members to start boycotting badger testing—because of the Government's failure to control TB.
	South Devon cattle farmer Richard Haddock says ministers are sitting back and allowing the disease to spiral out of control."
	The Minister will know Richard Haddock extremely well, because he is a south-western farmer based close to his seat, and he has been a crusader, to put it crudely, against TB for many years. It is significant that a major daily regional paper should carry such an editorial, which concludes:
	"But the NFU has reacted bitterly to the announcement, with officials protesting that MPs have still failed to grasp the urgency of the situation—and pointing out that another inquiry would do nothing to slow the advance of TB."
	That sums up neatly the feeling of south-western farmers.
	My constituency includes Exmoor—

Ben Bradshaw: The inquiry to which the hon. Gentleman refers is the next inquiry planned by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. The Government have nothing to do with that; it is up to the Select Committee.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I do not disagree with the Minister, but I think he will find that yet another inquiry is being requested in relation to TB because of the ending of the Krebs testing.
	The spread across Exmoor increased during the time when foot and mouth was prevalent in that area. Its spread across Exmoor and Britain is at 18 per cent. per annum. Within five to 10 years, virtually a third of the country will be covered by TB unless we do something about it now. It cannot wait. Regardless of which Government are in power, decisions must be made now.
	Interestingly, the DEFRA homepage says:
	"A number of wild animals . . . badger . . . brush-tailed possum, buffalo, bison and several species of . . . deer . . . can act as reservoirs"
	for bovine TB. Given that we have only deer and badgers, that narrows the problem down fast. On Exmoor, the worry is that more and more farmers, because they are getting concerned, scared and worried, are taking the law into their own hands to try to resolve the problem, which is not acceptable to anyone in the House or outside it. Because of foot and mouth and other factors the Krebs testing had to be cancelled last November, but it showed that in cull areas the disease was still spreading. That problem will continue.
	The Krebs testing set the basis for where we are going. Krebs stated that MAFF had spent approximately £16 million a year on TB compensation. The testing cost £45 million. Farmers received 100 per cent. Government funding, which went from £3 million in 1989–90 to £31 million last year. The Government spent £73 million last year, of which £31 million was for compensation, £29 million for testing alone, and £13 million for research. It is costing the country a fortune not to be able to eradicate the disease by means of either vaccination or better security.
	As a result of the foot and mouth outbreaks, there is now a huge backlog of testing of the 65,500 registered herds. If the present rate continues—62 overdue tests completed every three months—it will take up to 16 years to clear the backlog. That is ridiculous. If testing is not effective and up to date, how on earth can we predict what the disease will do?
	Professor Godfray's report recommended that the formation of a TB strategy should not wait until any further badger-culling trials had been completed. Can the Minister tell us where we are going on this? If the policy continues to drift, the spread of TB will continue unchecked. In places such as Exmoor and the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), that is entirely unacceptable. We have enough problems in the hill areas already, especially with the single payments scheme that is being introduced.
	Foot and mouth has cost the country between £3 billion and £5 billion. We do not want that massive epidemic to be repeated. I am not convinced that the Government have managed to do all they said they would do in terms of security. Dr. Iain Anderson's report includes five points, which I want to impress on the Minister. First, it recommends:
	"Contingency plans to be reviewed to ensure all departments can prioritise rapidly in the event of a crisis."
	I am fairly sure that that process has not been completed, and that not all Departments are prepared for another major epidemic. Secondly, it recommends:
	"Development of a national strategy for disease avoidance and control."
	Is that up and running? Has it been completed? If there is a certain amount still to be done, are we discussing the issue with those in other European countries, such as the Irish, who are also involved?
	The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) made it clear that an exercise was about to begin to test the resolve of those drawing up contingency plans, and to assess whether they would work. I established that those in my area, Exmoor, and in Somerset were not aware that there was a local contingency plan. I am not saying that that is the fault of the Minister or anyone else—perhaps the message has not reached that level—but will the Minister ensure that those in Somerset and Devon, for instance, know what the plans are? That may be up to MAFF, or to the Government office in the south-west.
	I should also like to know what stage we have reached with the electronic livestock tagging system. It is quite highly developed in the case of sheep, although for obvious reasons there is not the same problem in that instance. It would be one way of passporting cattle with absolute accuracy. I need not tell the Minister that passports and tags have an annoying habit of dropping out. All right, there are certain people who might use it for other reasons, but an electronic tagging system would leave no doubt about where that cow, calf or bull had been and what it had been up to.
	The final point, of which I have some experience, concerns better training for farmers and others in biosecurity measures. Everyone knows the vital importance of training farmers. They do not have enough time as it is, but we have a problem because many of our agriculture colleges are not having the resources put into them to enable them to provide that training. My agricultural college in west Somerset, which my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton and for Taunton (Mr. Flook) have been fighting for, is on the point of collapse and closure, and has been taken over. When I got in touch with it about this, it did not have any idea what it was meant to do to train farmers in biosecurity. It offers that as part of an agricultural course, but that tends to be for young farmers, and not, dare I say it, farmers who are slightly longer in the tooth—no disrespect to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams).
	The Government must look at that problem in a controlled manner. Another matter on which I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments is the Haskins report, which made many recommendations on the streamlining of the systems that control the country, including English Nature and DEFRA. The Secretary of State rejected most of it. I thought that it was a very balanced report, which Lord Haskins had lived through because of his experiences in the north-west, in Carlisle and other areas, which he brought together to show that we needed a much more streamlined system to be able to look after ourselves should there be an epidemic. I wonder what pressure was brought to bear on the Secretary of State on that matter by larger organisations such as English Nature, which may have said that they must not be amalgamated because they would not then be effective. Surely the whole answer is effectiveness and speed. The one thing to come out of the epidemic was the knowledge that we were woefully slow in bringing our defences up.
	The first report on foot and mouth, by the Royal Society, in 1715, suggested burning and burying. How far have we come since then? Pitifully, the answer is not very far. The only difference is that we will not now burn on farms, but want to incinerate.

Eric Martlew: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that burial was not an option this time because of the problems with BSE?

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In an emergency, burial is as good a way of getting rid of carcases as any other, but he is absolutely right to say that we should be going for incineration. My point is that should there be another epidemic, there would not be the capacity in this country to incinerate the necessary number of animals safely. I know that on-farm burning is still an option, but as one who lived through it, I would hesitate over that, and would not want to see it again.
	In conclusion, in areas such as Exmoor and Devon, which my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton and for Tiverton and Honiton also represent, we cannot get this matter wrong. If we do, whole swathes of this country suffer, as we have seen. Many things have been recommended by various reports, but they have not been brought together. There are too many loose ends, and unless the Minister and the Government pull them together, if we have another epidemic, either because TB grows faster or foot and mouth returns to this country, we will not be prepared to deal with it. People such as Richard Haddock and farmers throughout the country will be quite rightly furious with us as MPs, and with the Government in particular.

Huw Edwards: It is a pleasure to be able to contribute to the debate, and perhaps I may comment on one point that the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) just made on agricultural colleges. I am sure that he shares my concern that with the decline in the number of people wanting to enter agriculture at a young age, the agricultural colleges have diversified into such subjects as equine services and countryside management. Those are perfectly worthy activities, but the colleges have not been able to give as much investment or support to existing farming communities—the farmers who are long in the tooth whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
	It has been a pleasure to follow some of the speeches of my colleagues, and my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) made good contributions. My constituency was badly affected by foot and mouth, and some of the issues that we have discussed today have been brought to my attention by farmers in my constituency.
	I agree with probably two thirds of the official Opposition's motion. I agree that illegal imports pose a threat to this country and that vigorous controls are needed. I do not agree, however, that the Government have learned no lessons since the foot and mouth outbreak. Lessons were incorporated in the Bill on animal health, many clauses of which the official Opposition opposed; indeed, they may even have opposed the Bill in principle.
	Another lesson that has been learned is the importance of contingency planning. In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford I mentioned Operation Hornbeam, a major simulation operation that will take place in June to test contingency plans for another foot and mouth outbreak, and which will cover all parts of the country.
	I acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), who spoke about how well the ring rot outbreak in his constituency was contained, especially thanks to the responsible actions of the farmer concerned. I should also point out that it was a great honour to attend last Saturday the funeral of Geraint Howells, former Welsh Liberal Democrat leader and former Member of Parliament for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North. He would have contributed to this debate in his usual, very deliberate way.
	I was rather surprised when the Minister opened his speech by applauding the fact that the foot and mouth outbreak was contained within seven months. That seemed like a bit of positive spin that was perhaps written by a special adviser. There was more than a year of absolute hell in my constituency. I attach no blame to anybody in this regard. The situation overwhelmed everybody: Ministers, farmers—

Ben Bradshaw: Given that the Government managed to eradicate the 2001 outbreak more quickly than the late 1960s outbreak was eradicated, and that the latter was far more restricted geographically, does my hon. Friend accept that that was an achievement?

Huw Edwards: It was an achievement that the outbreak was eradicated. I, too, saw that briefing, but I decided not to make that claim in my contribution.

Theresa May: Perhaps I might assist in this debate. The Anderson inquiry, entitled "Lessons Learned", makes it clear that the 1967–68 epidemic lasted 222 days and the 2001 epidemic 221 days. So, far from its being eradicated in record time, it was eradicated in about the same time.

Huw Edwards: I shall not comment further on that, except to say that many lessons have been learned.
	I do hope that consideration will be given to a vaccination programme. I well remember the Prime Minister coming to my constituency at the height of the 2001 outbreak. The Farmers Union of Wales and the National Farmers Union made very strong representations to him. They were against a policy of vaccination, even though I was receiving dozens of letters from constituents who found the process of culling, fires and burials absolutely repulsive. They expected that consideration would be given to vaccination.
	The FUW has impressed on us the importance of the issue of illegal meat imports. A year or two ago, I attended a disturbing seminar by some experts. Evidence was shown of the amount of illegal imports coming through airports, and there was evidence from environmental health officers concerning the illegal production of meat. We in Wales have a particular problem with the production of smokies, which are a delicacy that is well liked by members of the West Indian community, and which involve the blow-torching of pork or beef. The illegal production of smokies has led to arrests in west Wales. The FUW is suggesting that the matter be brought into the open by enabling legal production of smokies in a properly controlled way. I hope that consideration can be given to that idea.

Russell Brown: I ask my hon. Friend to choose his words carefully. North of the border, smokies are a completely different thing; Arbroath smokies are well known and very well liked by all.

Huw Edwards: I would like to clarify that we are talking about two different products.
	The farming community is calling for more rigorous controls on illegal imports. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) referred to recent cases in which people convicted of illegal importing were given derisory fines of £140 or £150. If illegal imports were an important factor in the foot and mouth outbreak, let us consider the cost of that by comparison. Surely there should be an onus on the courts to sentence appropriately. Perhaps the court in Uxbridge is not close enough to a farming community to impose the penalties that might have been imposed had the cases been heard in west Wales or in a court in the farming community in Monmouthshire.
	It would also be right for all embassies to urge their citizens not to travel with meat products and other foodstuffs. When we go to America or Australia, we even have to declare whether we have been on a farm in the last four weeks or whether we have mud on our rugby boots. We have to declare any foodstuffs. We could have more rigorous controls in this country.
	It has been a pleasure to contribute to this debate. Hon. Members of all parties have spoken with authority and knowledge, and we all hope that we can avoid any further outbreak of foot and mouth and, if necessary, impose much stricter controls on illegal meat imports.

John Whittingdale: This has been a good debate on an issue of tremendous importance to British agriculture, animal welfare and our rural economy. I echo the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that it has been marred only by the fact that the Secretary of State and both Ministers of State decided that they had higher priorities elsewhere and left the Under-Secretary as the sole representative of his Department on the Treasury Bench.
	Much of the debate has concentrated on foot and mouth, which is not surprising, as it is only three years since we suffered the worst epidemic of the disease that the world has ever seen. More than 9,500 premises were affected directly, and up to 60,000 farms were subjected to movement restrictions. In my constituency, we were perhaps fortunate in having just the one outbreak, but that meant that it was an infected area, so all the farms were subjected to movement restrictions. I remember only too well that in many ways the hardship resulting from those restrictions was just as great for the farmers concerned, who of course received no compensation payment.
	The total number of animals slaughtered in the outbreak represented roughly an eighth of the entire farm livestock herd. The cost to the British economy was, according to official figures, about £8 billion, and according to some estimates, anything up to £20 billion. The outbreak left many farms devastated, with farmers seeing a lifetime's work destroyed.
	Even now, as this debate has shown, some questions remain unanswered. We still do not know how the disease entered this country or when, or indeed whether the first cases really were at the pig farm at Heddon-on-the-Wall, or whether, as some suspect, the disease might even have been in sheep for several months before. We still want to know why the Government ignored so many of the recommendations of the 1969 Northumberland report on the previous outbreak. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) said, a lot of people believe that, if the Government had implemented those recommendations, the outbreak would have been contained far sooner.
	We still need a proper investigation of the efficacy of the contiguous cull policy, under which millions of uninfected animals were destroyed, and an answer to the question whether that cull was even necessary. We still want to know why a vaccination programme was not introduced at an early stage. I share some of the views of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). Such a programme might have prevented the spread of the disease and led to its being eradicated far more quickly. That policy was adopted in Holland when 25 outbreaks of the disease occurred in April: it worked, and as a result, Holland was able to recover its export status just four months later. I have to say that that makes the Minister's remarks about achieving a solution in record time rather strange, as the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) pointed out.

Eric Martlew: I remember attending a conference in Brussels soon afterwards. The Dutch were not at all pleased with what had happened—what they did not like was vaccination to kill. If we are to have a vaccination policy, it has to be a policy to live.

John Whittingdale: Those are all questions that should have been, and still need to be, dealt with by a full public inquiry, which we have never had.
	The Minister referred to biosecurity, which we all agree is terribly important. He implied, as have some of his predecessors, that farmers were somehow at fault in failing to take proper precautions. I have to say that farmers are deeply angry about that claim, particularly when the vast majority were scrupulous in observing biosecurity. At the same time, they had to observe contractors employed by the Minister's Department who showed scant regard for biosecurity. Indeed, farmers had to watch lorries filled with infected carcases driving through uninfected areas.

Russell Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Whittingdale: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have little time left.
	All those questions should have been examined by a full public inquiry into how the epidemic originated and how the Government managed it. Instead, we had three different inquiries, focusing on different narrow aspects of the crisis, none of which persuaded farmers that a proper investigation had taken place.
	That lack of confidence has now been compounded by the revelation of the submission by Mr. Jim Dring. His statement that, if the inspection of the Waugh farm had been more rigorous, the foot and mouth epidemic might never have come about, is clearly immensely important. Mr. Dring has said that he intended his statement to go before the Anderson inquiry. His submission certainly amounted to more than, in the Secretary of State's words,
	"musing about the matter, examining his conscience and asking, 'Oh dear—is there more that I could have done'".—[Official Report, 11 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1640.]
	That is what she said, though the Minister tried to deny it. At least Lord Whitty has admitted that Dr. Anderson should have received that report—[Interruption.] However, we are now told that the Secretary of State held an internal investigation, which concluded that there was no intention to mislead the inquiry and that that evidence would not have made any difference in any case. As the Western Morning News said in its editorial, the exposure of Jim Dring's evidence served only to strengthen the overwhelming case for a public inquiry into the foot and mouth disaster. That case remains as strong as ever. We agree.
	The foot and mouth epidemic was by far the biggest disease outbreak to affect British agriculture, but it is not the only one. My hon. Friends the Members for Taunton (Mr. Flook), for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), as well as the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence), have all spoken about the crisis resulting from the spread of bovine tuberculosis. The Government's own consultation document predicts that, without major changes in policy, the incidence of TB will go on rising by about 20 per cent. every year. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater pointed out the costs to the taxpayer. The Government's own document forecasts that that cost will accumulate, over the next 10 years, to £2 billion, yet they have no answers and say that they are waiting for the results of the Krebs trials, which may not be available for several more years.
	Several of my hon. Friends suggested that we simply cannot afford to go on waiting. Just a few weeks ago, the report by Professor Godfray called for immediate publication of the interim results and said that we could not afford to wait for the trials to be completed. He suggested that policy had to be based on the assumption that badgers were involved in disease transmission, but the Minister's only response has been to extend the period of his Department's latest consultation. The Minister has to grasp the nettle and act to stop the spread of the disease now.
	We are also seeing worrying signs of the presence of other animal and plant diseases in this country. Last week, we saw the first outbreak for 10 years of brucellosis in cattle. Happily, it was quickly contained. This week, we have heard about the danger of blue tongue virus entering this country if temperatures continue to rise. We are also aware of the dangers to human health if avian influenza is allowed to enter the country.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire both raised concerns about the lack of large animal practice vets and consequent difficulties, particularly in respect of preventive measures. The Government need to address that serious problem.
	In plant health, we have suffered the first-ever outbreak of potato ring rot in the UK. Luckily, the responsible attitude of the farmer, Mr. John Morgan, and the quick action of the Department's officials, meant that that was contained. However, it has cost Mr. Morgan well over £500,000, with no possibility of compensation. I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) that that seems deeply unjust. It also raises the real fear that other growers will be highly reluctant to report any suspicions about a further outbreak.
	The campaign by Farmers Weekly called "Keep British Crops Healthy" highlights the fact that we badly need a compensation scheme that protects all growers from the financial burden of early outbreaks of pests or diseases, and which provides an incentive for openness and honesty. Perhaps the most important way to improve our biosecurity is to take far tougher action to stop the illegal importation of food.
	The first recommendation of the Devon public inquiry into the foot and mouth epidemic called for import controls to be tightened to the highest international standards and, if necessary, to be the subject of new legislation. Yet the Government's Animal Health Act 2002, introduced in the aftermath of the epidemic, did not even deal with that issue.
	In the past three years, the Australian Government have recruited more than 1,000 extra staff for border operations, doubled the number of X-ray machines used for quarantine screening, and have increased the number of detector dog teams from 33 to 48. We welcome the news from the Minister this afternoon that the UK is to have 10 dogs. However, given the number of points of entry, that does not inspire much confidence that we can seriously contain the problem. It is estimated that, on average, about 7,500 tonnes of illegal meat products are imported to the UK each year, much of it in suitcases and hand luggage.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead mentioned the concerns about the risks to the health of people, as well as of animals. Yet, three weeks ago, a Health Minister answered a question from me by saying that the Food Standards Agency does not consider that there needs to be a formal risk assessment of the threat to public health posed by illegal meat imports.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead also referred to the convictions of two people, and the level of fines that were imposed on them. However, as the president of the Farmers Union of Wales asked, what is the point of arresting people for bringing hazardous foodstuffs into this country if magistrates hand out such pathetic fines?
	British farming has already suffered one disease outbreak that led to misery for thousands, and the deaths of millions of animals. The industry will not survive another outbreak yet, owing to our failure to take adequate precautions, one could happen at almost any time. The Government should act now, before it is too late.

Ben Bradshaw: With the leave of the House—

Eric Forth: No.

David Maclean: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Jackie Lawrence: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This debate was called by Her Majesty's Opposition to secure answers from the Minister. Is it now appropriate for them to take this action to prevent him from replying?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is entirely a matter for Her Majesty's Opposition.

Eric Martlew: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it right for Opposition Members to say that they look forward to the Minister's reply, and then to move a closure motion? It sounds as though the vote is not following the voice.

Madam Deputy Speaker: These are purely matters for debate.

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. For clarification, I should point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), a shadow Cabinet member, opened the debate. However, the Government did not have the courtesy to have a Minister of Cabinet rank to respond, and—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. We have debated the matter, and leave for the Minister to respond has been refused by the House. I am now about to put the Question.

Adrian Flook: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As one who made a speech and asked the Minister to respond to it, I should be happy for him to write to me.

Huw Edwards: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Was not the debate timetabled for three hours? If hon. Members on either side of the House wish to catch your eye, should they not have an opportunity to contribute?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Closure has been moved, and I shall now put the Question on that.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 235.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Madam Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House commends the action taken by this Government to eradicate exotic plant and animal disease when it occurs, and to control endemic disease; congratulates the Government on its actions that have succeeded in reducing the number of BSE clinical cases to just 184 last year; further congratulates the Government on eradicating a major outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in seven months and on implementing the recommendations of the Lessons Learned and Royal Society Inquiries so that Government is better prepared to tackle a future outbreak of a major livestock disease; welcomes the significant progress made to tackle illegal imports both by increasing enforcement activity at the border and by increasing public awareness; applauds the Government on its action taken against other animal and plant diseases, notably Salmonella Java and potato ring rot; and notes the Government's continuing commitment to prevent serious animal and plant disease.

DRAFT CHARITIES BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Ordered,
	That the Lords Message of 19th April relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on any draft Charities Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, be now considered.
	That this House concurs with the Lords that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on any draft Charities Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, and that the Committee shall report on the draft Bill by 30th September 2004.
	That a Select Committee of six honourable Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Charities Bill.
	That the Committee shall have power—
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report from time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers;
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
	That the quorum of the Committee shall be two; and
	That Mr Alan Campbell, Mr George Foulkes, Ms Sally Keeble, Mr Alan Milburn, Mr Andrew Mitchell and Bob Russell be members of the Committee.—[Paul Clark.]

STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
	That Richard Ottaway be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and that Mrs Angela Browning be added.—[Paul Clark.]

RAIL TRANSPORT (KENT AND MEDWAY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Paul Clark.]

Jonathan R Shaw: This debate is a response to the Strategic Rail Authority's consultation on the new integrated Kent rail franchise. The proposal to provide high-speed channel tunnel rail link domestic services from Folkestone, Thanet, Canterbury, Ashford, Swale, Medway and Gravesend has been warmly welcomed by Kent and Medway. The £5 billion high-speed rail service will provide a significant boost to the sub-regional economies and coastal towns of Thanet and, importantly, will allow for the sustainable development of the growth areas in Ashford and the Thames gateway. It is also welcome that the SRA has responded positively to, and is examining the possibility of, the proposal to extend the line to Dover.
	For the Medway towns, the high-speed rail link will mean more than just new rail services. It will be a magnet, drawing in inward investment and building on the regeneration that has already taken place. The case that has been put forward by those of us in Kent and Medway for the channel tunnel rail link domestic service in debates, questions and meetings with Ministers over the years has always been about additional capacity, not replacement of services. It is therefore not surprising that the majority of existing passengers in the Medway towns do not see how St. Pancras can meet their current travel needs. They therefore see no justification for reducing the fast services to London from Medway, as set out in the SRA's document.
	Although I warmly welcome the channel tunnel rail link's domestic service proposals, I need to focus my comments on the SRA's proposals under the current integrated Kent franchise. This is the first major review of the Kent rail timetable since electrification in 1963. That was the time when technology was thrusting us into a brave new world. It was the year that Harold Wilson told the Labour party conference in Scarborough that Britain was going to be forged by the white heat of the scientific revolution. Over the past 20 years or so, in Kent, we have not seen that much in the way of white heat and scientific revolution when it comes to our train service.
	Every day thousands and thousands of people living in Kent travel to London for their work, and their experience over the years has been, to put it bluntly, pretty grim. We have seen fragmentation; we have seen privatisation; we have seen deterioration due to a lack of investment; and we have seen off Connex.
	Kent is part of one of the most complicated franchises in the entire rail network, with 182 stations, 773 km of track and 120,000 morning commuters. Of the 1,700 train journeys, 1,400 go into London carrying 13.2 million passengers every year. With the growth in numbers travelling to London—I shall come to that point later—the antiquated infrastructure often struggles to provide and maintain a reliable service. It is beset with problems. As well as the old age of some of the signalling, many of the stations are appalling. The prize for the very worst perhaps goes to those along the Medway valley line, which sadly runs through my constituency and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews).
	It is true, as the SRA argues, that its network is complex and congested, and delays can very quickly snowball. Yet this should not, in itself, be a justification for running fewer trains. The network needs to have the capacity for the number of people who want to use it—whether that is for business or pleasure. If there are fewer trains, there will simply be more overcrowded trains. In Medway, on the Cannon Street service, which runs to the City, where many of my constituents work, we currently have seven fast trains at peak times. Under the SRA's proposals, that number will be reduced to two. The Victoria fast service from Medway, which stops at Bromley, currently has 15 trains. Under the SRA's proposals, the number will be cut to 10. With reductions via Dartford, the total reduction—even when we take account of the new channel tunnel rail link domestic service trains—will be from 32 to 26 trains.
	It is not just the number of trains that is the problem; it is the number of seats as well. My hon. Friend the Minister advised me in a written answer on 30 March that there are just over 20,000 seats available from Medway during peak-time services at present. There is no certainty about the number in the future, not least because Rochester and Strood platforms are currently unable to accommodate the 12-car trains with 700-seat capacity that will be the new CTRL domestic service. Instead, he has advised me in written answers that these stations will have a service of six-car trains, halving the possible capacity. Upgrading the platforms, he advises me, would cost £12.4 million at Rochester and £1.2 million at Strood.
	I understand the financial pressures that the Department and the SRA are under, but why has the SRA not looked more imaginatively at, for example, selective door opening? I grant that that is far from ideal, but capacity has to be at the forefront of our ambitions. As I said, if we have fewer trains, we will have more crowded trains or we will force people on to the roads to drive to Ebbesfleet. The idea that the new franchise will force commuters to drive further along the A2 flies in the face of what we are trying to achieve with an integrated transport system.
	Moreover, in Medway our bus company, Arriva, will commission its new bus service in June. Some £10 million, an unprecedented sum, is being invested in a new bus fleet, added to which a new timetable will offer more frequent journeys. Car parking has always been a problem in Medway stations. My hon. Friends and I want to see Arriva picking up customers. The current proposals, I fear, will further discourage train commuters from taking the bus to the station. It has been estimated by Medway council that the number of seats available could be reduced by as many as 7,000.
	We welcome the fact that the Strategic Rail Authority document states that the integrated Kent franchise recognises its contribution to regional planning goals, including the regeneration of Kent and the Mayor's London plan. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark). His high office prevents him from making an outstanding contribution this evening. In his work on the Thames gateway he has worked tirelessly to ensure that the planning and transport systems are joined up. As I said, 1963 is a significant date in terms of electrification. On this very day in 1963 my hon. Friend was six years old. Gillingham's No. 1 son celebrates his birthday today.
	We welcome the strategic approach to planning and transport, but we—

Robert Marshall-Andrews: On the strategic basis that he just mentioned, will my hon. Friend give way? [Interruption.] I should very much welcome the Minister's attention to the intervention that I am about to make, facile though that may at first appear. Is it not the case that the Medway towns have been the beneficiaries of more inward investment from the Government than any other single conurbation in the United Kingdom? All of us in the Chamber welcome that with open arms. The Minister might find it rather difficult to hear me say that one of the Government's great achievements is in my constituency. The Minister previously said he could not understand why the Government had given so much money to my constituency.
	Before you tell me that this is an incursion or an invasion, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Minister to answer this question: is it not right that, given the enormous investment in the capital structure of the Medway towns, we must have a concomitant investment in our infrastructure to give us the speed and the ability to feed into London? That must be a structural and strategic gain—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is rather long for an intervention. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is drawing his remarks to a conclusion.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: You have been more than beneficent as regards my intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will have understood the point that I am making.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend 's contribution. He is right. We have seen considerable investment in the regeneration of the waterfronts and moneys for our universities. That was one of his aspirations when he stood for the Medway constituency in the 1992 general election. That aspiration has been driven forward by many people in the Medway towns. His contribution, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham, has been important. We now see students receive higher education in the Medway towns, and they too will need a transport system.
	We are concerned about the strategic aspects of that, and we are worried that the SRA does not appreciate the scale of development in Medway. Unlike other areas, there has been no quantitative estimate of the scale of development. Development is taking place on Strood, Chatham and Gillingham waterfronts, and importantly, those are all within walking distance of a train station.
	Today 20,000 residents—17 per cent. of the work force—travel to London. We are generating new employment opportunities, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway pointed out, and the channel tunnel rail link domestic service will assist us further.

Gwyn Prosser: My hon. Friend is making powerful arguments for linking the channel tunnel rail link with some of the strategic centres of Kent. Does he agree that the port of Dover ranks highly among those strategic centres? Does he support the view in east Kent that we should be linking the busiest city in this country with the busiest ferry port in the world? At the same time, when we look at such major strategic matters, we should not lose track of the issues that he has already raised regarding services to some of our small stations. I have in mind places such as Kearsney, which is just a stone's throw from my home, Martin Mill and of course Snowdown.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has worked tirelessly in respect of Dover. As I said, the Strategic Rail Authority has left the door open and is exploring the matter, which is testimony to the hard work that he has put in on behalf of his constituents.
	As I said, 17 per cent. of the work force travel to London. The population is set to increase from the current 250,000 to 300,000 by 2024. That means that commuting could rise by 30 per cent. over the next 20 years—the equivalent of 1.3 per cent. a year. By the time the new trains start running in 2008, demand is likely to be 5 per cent. higher than now, and it is likely to be 10 per cent. higher in 2012.
	There is welcome news in the SRA document, as well as the channel tunnel rail link domestic service, and it is important to place that on record. On the Ashford, Maidstone and West Malling line, which serves the southern end of my constituency, there are set to be three additional peak period trains to Victoria. The Medway valley line, to which I referred earlier, will have trains running through to Tonbridge. That will make the line significantly more attractive to use. However, the proposal to reduce stopping times is unacceptable, and I, together with parish councils at Cuxton, Snodland, East Malling, Larkfield and Aylesford, have met the SRA and voiced our objections.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) said, throughout the county, people are very hostile to reductions in off-peak rural services. Rather than save a few minutes, the people of Kent would like to retain existing services. There is a significant opportunity to grow off-peak services and to provide better stations, information and revenue collection, which is simply not undertaken on some lines.
	My hon. Friend the Minister understands our anxiety. I know that he not only fully appreciates what we are seeking to achieve in Medway and the Thames gateway, but actively supports it. As a former planning Minister, does he share our belief that changing the timetable in such a revolutionary way is very dangerous? If there is one lesson that we have learned in recent years, it is that we cannot achieve a quick fix for the railways. If there are to be changes, they have to be not revolutionary, but evolutionary. Passengers will need time to adapt to changes. It is important that a level of flexibility is built in, so that where we see growth occurring, the rail system can meet that demand.
	The task ahead is difficult, with many competing demands for priority. We are seeing investment in our rail service. Some £600 million has been invested in new trains on the south-east network, and they are being rolled out. They are air-conditioned and are far more able to respond to the climatic challenges of snow and ice. The Government have a track record of £75 million a week in investment. Hatfield lifted the lid on the appalling state of our track. The Tory legacy of botched privatisation has been long, painful and very expensive. It has caused delays, but we cannot move forward without a safe network.
	The review is the first of the Kent rail timetable since 1963. The great train robbery took place in that year, when £5 million was snatched from a Royal Mail train in Buckinghamshire. The Strategic Rail Authority's proposals will amount to the great train robbery of Kent if they are allowed to go forward. We do not want a reduction in our train services. We have what Martin Luther King had in another significant event in 1963—a dream. We have a dream of a more reliable rail service that is fit for the future, and fit to carry the people of Kent around the county and, in what has been the focus of the debate, to carry them to and from our capital city.

Tony McNulty: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) on securing the debate—in one sense, it is timely; in another sense, it is not, and I shall come on to the reasons for that. I further congratulate my hon. Friend on mentioning Martin Luther King, Ronnie Biggs and my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark) in one cogent, clear speech.
	I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Chatham and Aylesford and for Dover (Mr. Prosser), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) on the way in which they have argued their case not only in public forums such as this, but throughout the process from specification to consultation, which may appear tortuous. I include my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham, who is more mute than usual because of his high office, in those congratulations.
	I congratulate my hon. Friends on placing this debate in the context of the significant activity by the Government in Kent throughout 1997. The debate is timely, in that the Strategic Rail Authority concluded its 12-week consultation on the integrated Kent franchise—hereafter IKF—on 23 April, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford knows that the SRA is seeking to move to invitation to tender by June, at which stage the results of the consultation will be announced. The debate is not timely, in that, whatever I say, I cannot prejudge the outcome of the consultation, but I assure my hon. Friends that their comments will be fed into it, although I am sure that those points are already part of the consultation.
	My hon. Friend is right that rail services in Kent have suffered from under-investment, a slow network, unsatisfactory reliability and outdated rolling stock. As he says, the timetable in Kent and south-east London has remained largely unchanged for the best part of 40 years, and it needs to change to reflect current and future needs, to deliver improved reliability and to build on the capital infrastructure that we have put in. I take the point that our objectives must be concomitant, at least in part, with not only that capital infrastructure investment, but our plans for the entire area.
	My hon. Friend knows that passenger services throughout Kent, parts of Sussex and south-east London are currently operated by South Eastern Trains, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the SRA and took over the services from Connex. The key objectives in SET's business plan for 2004–05 are to stabilise the business, to provide a higher standard of service to passengers and to introduce new trains to replace the Mk 1 slam-door fleet. That is important because we are discussing a service that will not be introduced until 2007 and beyond, so there is still an interim period. I hesitate to say it because I know that it will come true and bite me, but I am sure that a "save our slam-door trains heritage society" will be formed at some stage. I do not know whether such a society exists yet, but the sooner we get the new stock in, the better.
	As my hon. Friend said, the proposed franchise represents a significant milestone in the development of Britain's railways, and a major opportunity for Kent. It is a stark fact that the channel tunnel rail link is the first major railway to be built in this country in more than a century, and section one opened on time and to budget in 2003—I had the great pleasure of visiting Leeds castle for the sideshow that took place at the same time as the main opening. Section two of the CTRL is due to open in 2007, providing faster journey times and opening up new travel opportunities. In developing the IKF, the SRA wants to make the best use of the whole railway network in the region, including the CTRL. As my hon. Friends said, that is a matter of balancing the strengths and advantages of the high-speed line with the needs of the existing network.
	The objective is to specify a passenger train service provision that is based around current and future demand while delivering better reliability at a cost that is both value for money and affordable. The SRA is proposing a revised timetable of services for the integrated Kent franchise that is based on an all-day regular service pattern that is easy for customers to understand.
	New stations at Ebbsfleet and at the other end of Stratford will assist regeneration in the Thames gateway, including north Kent, and provide new access to the rail network, some improved journey times and service reliability, which will benefit other centres on the network.
	The IKF timetable specification document is the final step in the formal consultation to develop a detailed franchise proposition. Earlier consultations addressed CTRL domestic services and the proposal for an integrated franchise of services running on CTRL and the national rail network. I do not need to rehearse the proposals for the Medway towns, because my hon. Friends will certainly know about them. I am grateful to them for highlighting the advantages, in terms of their constituency interests and the interests of the county, of adding to what already prevails. I am sure that they will have pointed out some of the gaps to the SRA.
	The SRA forecasts demand patterns for peak and off-peak periods that will require significantly different service patterns, especially in the context of maximising the use of dedicated CTRL domestic rolling stock at peak times. The calling pattern of peak services will have to reflect available platform length at certain stations together with any further constraints that may emerge through the SRA's detailed timetable development work.

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friend mentioned platforms. As I said, some of the platforms at Rochester and Strood are too small to accommodate all 12 carriages. Does he agree that the SRA should consider flexible options whereby only some of the doors are opened? That would not be ideal, but it could be a possibility.

Tony McNulty: I do not doubt that it is a possibility, because it already happens on some lines. I am sure that my hon. Friend has made that point to the SRA.
	There has been a substantial consultation process. During previous consultations, people have made it clear that they want faster, more reliable trains. In response to those demands, the SRA's service specification aims to deliver faster journeys. Every station stop typically adds some two minutes to journey time on a medium-speed railway, perhaps slightly less in inner suburban areas and more where prevailing line speeds are higher. There has to be a balance between achieving high speeds and constantly stopping. The SRA will say that it has got that right, whereas my hon. Friends will have made strong representations on behalf of their constituents that that is not the case.
	One area of concern has been the proposal that services should serve different London terminals. The SRA is reviewing the specification and testing the feasibility of alternative options suggested by consultees in conjunction with Network Rail. As my hon. Friends will know far better than I, going into different terminals can have a ripple effect throughout the network.
	Others have expressed concern about services for people travelling to local schools and colleges. The SRA is considering the need to reflect those traffic flows and collating information on particular passenger numbers and flows.
	Reductions in peak services at some stations also attracted comments, including from passengers who use Farningham road station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate). It is expected that a significant number of people from the catchment area of that station would transfer to CTRL services from Ebbsfleet, thus reducing the level of passenger demand at Farningham road.
	Whatever is outlined in the invitation to tender in June as a result of the consultation, I accept that, given the growth and activity that will take place in Kent over the next 10, 15 or 20 years, it must have a degree of flexibility. But as I have said, the consultation period for this initial phase closed on 23 April, and all responses and comments are now being considered and the feedback analysed. When the final invitation to tender for the new franchise is issued to bidders in June, the SRA will shortly afterwards provide a "stakeholder briefing information document"—its words, not mine— to key stakeholders, to explain exactly what is in the bid. It will contain similar information to that provided to the bidders about the IKF service provision requirements.
	The SRA has a strong shortlist of four bidders for the IKF franchise: Danish State Railways; GNER; First Kent Integrated Railways Ltd; and London South Eastern Railway Ltd. All four organisations have proven experience in delivering railway services. The SRA continues to work on the process for delivering the IKF franchise, and aims to have it in place by early 2005.
	The integrated Kent franchise provides an opportunity to design a train service for Kent that exploits the potential of the channel tunnel rail link by speeding up journeys and providing new, direct links to new stations at Ebbsfleet, Stratford and St. Pancras, with the connections to other parts of the country. As I have said, the IKF specification is a very complex issue, involving many difficult choices and trade-offs. I believe there will be very many winners, but I accept that some people will be unhappy with some of the proposals—perhaps when the invitation to tender comes out.
	The consultation has been a very open process and I know that the SRA chairman has met several hon. Members to hear their views. Also, various meetings were arranged by the SRA at the beginning of the final stage of the consultation process, and a number of smaller meetings with stakeholders have subsequently been hosted by the SRA or attended by SRA representatives at various locations in the south-east. The views of hon. Members, other stakeholders and passengers are now being analysed in detail and the SRA has the challenge of finding the best balance between the needs of passengers and of taxpayers.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: At the end of what has been a very detailed and considered response, may I ask the Minister simply to give us a general undertaking that, when the Government invest vast sums of money in an area—as they have done in ours—they will also in the long term undertake a concomitant responsibility to ensure that the infrastructure in those areas will bear a resemblance to what has been invested?

Tony McNulty: I thought that I had made it clear earlier that that is the approach that the Government take. It is a matter of interpretation and dispute whether the SRA has achieved that in the context of the IKF, and we shall wait to see what the invitation to tender says about specifications.
	I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate today. This is about finding the best balance between the needs of passengers and the call on public resources, and between meeting the needs of those who want an integrated, comprehensive all-stopping service and getting full utilisation of the high-speed link.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Seven o'clock.